/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210412.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, April 12, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 67

                            Headlines

20TH STREET: Faces Duran Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D. New York
AAR CORP: Fee Request for $800,000 in Gusinsky Trust Suit Granted
ACCEPTANCE SOLUTIONS: Underpays Overtime Wages, Smith Suit Claims
ADAPTHEALTH CORP: Data Breach Related Suit vs. Solara Underway
ADT LLC: Doty Files Suit in Southern District of Florida

ALLY FINANCIAL: Cheng Securities Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida
AMAZON.COM INC: Requires Pre-Employment Drug Test, Thomas Says
AMAZON.COM INC: Sells Counterfeit Dietary Supplements, Suit Says
AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Class Cert. Bid in NY Securities Suit Pending
AMERICA SPECIALTY: Misclassifies Pharmacists, Cooper Suit Claims

AMERICAN CENTER: Hedges Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
AMERILIST INC: Candelario Files TCPA Suit in California
AMPHASTAR PHARMA: Brenes Class Suit Settled for $1 Million
ANAPLAN INC: Bid to Dismiss Sakkal Putative Class Suit Pending
ANNIE'S HOMEGROWN: McCarthy Files Suit in N.D. California

ANTARES PHARMA: Lungu Appeals Securities Suit Dismissal to 3rd Cir.
APPLE INC: $5-Mil. in Attorneys' Fees Awarded in Grace Class Suit
APPLE INC: Viglietti Class Suit Moved From W.D. Tenn. to N.D. Cal.
ARIEL COMMUNITY: Misclassifies Peer Supporters, Brewster Claims
ASHFORD HOSPITALITY: Continues to Defend Membrives Class Action

ASHFORD HOSPITALITY: Employment Class Suit vs Subsidiary Ongoing
ASPEN AMERICAN: Denies Coverage Due to COVID-19 Losses, Suit Says
ASPEN AMERICAN: Elder Seeks Payment for COVID-19 Business Losses
ASSERTIO HOLDINGS: Glumetza(R) Related Class Suit Underway
ASSERTIO HOLDINGS: Huang Suit Stayed Pending Settlement Discussions

AT&T INC: Third Circuit Appeal Filed in Kantz Discrimination Suit
BAD DRAGON: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in New York
BANK OF AMERICA: Lee Files Class Suit in California Superior Court
BEECH-NUT NUTRITION: Faces Suit Over Mislabeled Baby Food Products
BLACKSTONE MEDICAL: Turner Files Suit to Recover Overtime Pay

BRYANT & STRATTON: Hedges Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BUMBLE INC: Settlement in Class Suit Fully Effective as of Jan. 18
BUMBLE INC: Settlement in Discrimination Suit Awaits Preliminary OK
CALOP BUSINESS: Denial of Arbitration Bid in Cruz Suit Affirmed
CAMPBELL SOUP: Baby Foods Contain Toxic Heavy Metals, Suit Says

CAPITAL ONE: Faces Fernandez $9.9 MM Suit in C.D. California
CASEY'S GENERAL: Class in McColley Suit Conditionally Certified
CDM FEDERAL: Faces Batiste Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
CENTRAL PORTFOLIO: Dhas Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection Practices
CITIZENS INSURANCE: Denies Coverage Due to COVID Losses, Suit Says

CJ'S FIRST WOK: King Files FCRA Suit in North District of Ohio
CLIENT SERVICES: Preisler Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
COCA-COLA CONSOLIDATED: Bid to Dismiss Jones ERISA Suit Denied
COFFEE HOLDING: Brodsky and Diamond Putative Class Suit Underway
COFFEE HOLDING: Cohen Putative Class Suit Underway

CORELLE BRANDS: Garcia Suit Removed to N.D. California
CPUTOPIA LLC: Young Files ADA Suit in Southern District of New York
CRYSTAL DELIGHTS: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CVS PHARMACY: Petition for Writ of Certiorari Filed in Doe Suit
CYBERGUYS INC: Young Files ADA Suit in New York

DEROSSI MAC: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage Under FLSA & NYLL, Suit Says
DICKEY'S BARBEQUE: Stroman Suit Transferred to Texas
DIGITAL RISK: Johnson et al. Seek Loan Processors' Unpaid Overtime
DINEX GROUP: Court Orders Filing of Executed Settlement in Eliaas
DIVERSICARE HEALTHCARE: Bid to Drop Arkansas Suit Still Pending

DOE DEFENDANT: Faces Hidalgo Suit Over Failure to Pay Proper OT
DOLLAR TREE: Almond Milk Label Related Suit Dismissed
DOLLAR TREE: Fails to Pay Proper OT to Managers, Stark Suit Says
DOLLAR TREE: Family Dollar Facing Coffee Mislabelling Class Suit
DOLLAR TREE: PPE Related Class Suit Resolved

DOLLAR TREE: Settlement in Former Employee Suit Granted Approval
DOLLAR TREE: Settlement w/ Distribution Employee Granted Final OK
EASTMAN KODAK: Continues to Defend Class Suits in New Jersey
ELISABETH DEVOS: Sweet Suit Transferred to N.D. California
ENERGY RECOVERY: Visser Purported Securities Class Suit Closed

ENHANCED RECOVERY: Alexander Sues Over Deceptive Collection Letter
ENHANCED RECOVERY: Nabors Sues Over Deceptive Collection Letter
EVERI HOLDINGS: Settlement in Donahue Granted Final Approval
EXPRESS MESSENGER: Faces Bergman Employment Suit in California
FACEBOOK INC: Frankfother Appeals Final Approval of Patel Suit Deal

FARRIOR CORP: Nooney Seeks Delivery Drivers' Unreimbursed Expenses
FIGPIN COLLECT: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Quezada Claims
FIRST ADVANTAGE: Applicant Sues Over Illegal Background Check
FIRST SOLAR: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, Pryke Suit Claims
FLAGSTAR BANCORP: Faces Beyer Suit Over Alleged Data Breach

FOLGER COFFEE: Sorin Suit Transferred to W.D. Missouri
FOLGER COFFEE: Tan Consumer Suit Moved From C.D. Cal. to W.D. Mo.
FOSSIL GROUP: Holden Suit Removed From State Court to M.D. Florida
FREDY LANDSCAPING: Fails to Pay Overtime, Vargas Suit Claims
FRONTLINE ASSET: Coss Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois

FUNKO INC: Continues to Defend Kanugonda Class Suit
FUNKO INC: Court Dismisses Consolidated Ferreira-Nahas Suit
FUNKO INC: Stockholders Appeal Dismissal of Class Suit
FURY FILM: Davis Files Suit in California Superior Court
FUTURE MOTION: Soto Remanded to Santa Cruz County Superior Court

GENERAL MILLS: Faces deVera Suit Over Products' Phthalates Content
GENERAL MOTORS: Leace FSCA Class Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
GENIE ENERGY: Preliminary Bid to Dismiss Davis Suit Pending
GENUINE DATA: Faces Jackson Suit Over Alleged Violation of FCRA
GERBER PRODUCTS: Adams Files Suit in Eastern District of Virginia

GERON CORP: Bid to Nix IMbark Related Putative Class Suit Pending
GHOSTBED INC: Coffi Sues Over Unsolicited Automated Text Messages
GLOBAL CREDIT: Lane Files Suit in New York Superior Court
GOHEALTH INC: Consolidated Putative Securities Class Suit Underway
GOODRX HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Terenzini & Kearney Suits

HALLMARK FINANCIAL: Bid to Nix Yalamanchili Suit Pending
HALLMARK UNIVERSITY: Hedges Files ADA Suit in New York
HARDWARE AND TOOLS: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
HARVEST CAPITAL: Facing Portman Ridge Finance Merger Related Suits
HELIX ENERGY: Wade Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA

HF FOODS: Bid to Junk Yee Headed Putative Class Suit Pending
HF FOODS: Employment Class Suit vs. Happy FM Underway
HONEYBEE GARDENS: Quezada Says Website Inaccessible to Blind Users
HUNTER DOUGLAS: Gillison Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Overtime
HUNTERS POINT: Fimbres Files Suit in California Superior Court

HYUNDAI MOTOR: Cars Have Engine Defect, Thornhill Suit Alleges
IDT CORP: Discovery Ongoing in JDS1 LLC Class Action
IDT CORP: Rosales Settlement Agreement Awaits Court Approval
IMPAC MORTGAGE: Appeal in Timm Class Suit Ongoing
IMPAC MORTGAGE: Arbitration in Nguyen Suit Set for October 25

IMPAC MORTGAGE: Court Junks Marentes' Request to Review Ruling
IMPAC MORTGAGE: Trial in McNair-Batres Class Suit Set for July 12
ING GROEP: Continues to Defend Mexican Gov't Bond Price Fixing Suit
ING GROEP: Dismissal of SIBOR and SOR Related Suit Under Appeal
ING GROEP: Spain Unit Still Defends Mortgage Expenses Claims Suit

INTRICON CORP: Hoffman Putative Class Suit Stayed
ISS FACILITY: 9th Cir. Affirms Denial of Arbitration in Garcia Suit
J.M. SMUCKER: Ashton Consumer Suit Moved From C.D. Cal. to W.D. Mo.
JELLY BELLY: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Williams Alleges
JESUS ORDONEZ: Underpays Construction Workers, Montalvo Claims

JONES FINANCIAL: Anderson Putative Class Suit Underway
JONES FINANCIAL: Bland Class Suit Over Race Bias Ongoing
JONES FINANCIAL: Bland FLSA-Related Class Suit Underway
JONES FINANCIAL: Settlement in McDonald Suit to be Administered
JONES FINANCIAL: Settlement in Watson Suit Granted Final Approval

JORGE'S RESTAURANT: Vargas Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
JUMIA TECHNOLOGIES: Awaits Approval of Settlements in Class Suits
JUUL LABS: Bibb County Sues Over Marketing of E-Cigarette Products
JUUL LABS: E-Cigarettes Target Youth Market, Aceti Suit Alleges
KASEYA US: Robinson FLSA Class Suit Removed to S.D. Florida

KINDER MORGAN: Barragan Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
L&M LOGISTICS: Gordon Files Suit in California Superior Court
LENNOX IND.: Darrett Suit Removed from State Ct. to C.D. Calif.
LEXICON PHARMACEUTICALS: Dismissal of Manopla Suit Under Appeal
LEXINGTON INSURANCE: Winvian Seeks Payment for COVID-19 Losses

LIFEFUELS INC: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
LIGHT OF LIFE: Laster Sues Over Unpaid Overtime & Tax Evasion
LINEAGE CELL: Ross Putative Class Action Ongoing
LIPOCINE INC: Bid to Dismiss Abady Class Suit Still Pending
LOANDEPOT INC: Defends Two TCPA Related Putative Class Suits

LOGICBIO THERAPEUTICS: Afinowicz Purported Class Suit Underway
LOMPOC, CA: Fabricant Appeals Ruling in Torres Prison Suit
LORA DICARLO: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
LOUISIANA: Intervenors' Bid to Dismiss Perrin Suit vs. DOT Granted
LOW COST INTERLOCK: Kemp Appeals Counsel Fees Bid Ruling to 9th Cir

LUIS CALLE: Narvaez Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Construction Workers
LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA: Goldstein Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
MAIDEN HOLDINGS: Bid to Junk New Jersey Putative Class Suit Pending
MARINE CREDIT: Monroe Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA, WWPCL
MARVELL TECH: Facing Inphi Merger Related Suits

MID-HUDSON VALLEY: Facciola Sues Over Improper Overdraft Fees
MINNESOTA ASSOCIATION: Appeals Fellows Suit Ruling to 8th Circuit
MISSION PRODUCE: Former Employees File Suit Over Unpaid Overtime
MISTRAS GROUP: Price Purported Class Action Suit Underway
MONARCH RECOVERY: Chotiswatdi Sues Over Unlawful Collection Letter

MONARCH RECOVERY: Faces Pegues FDCPA Suit in District of Minnesota
MORRIS PARK: Brewster Files Suit in New York Superior Court
MULTIPLAN CORP: Facing Verger Putative Securities Class Action
MYRIAD GENETICS: Purported Class Suit in Utah Underway
NABRIVA THERAPEUTICS: May 14 Final Settlement Approval Hearing

NATIONAL DELIVERY: Johnson Seeks Delivery Drivers' Unpaid OT Wages
NATIONAL WESTERN: Facing Baldwin and Dyrssen Putative Class Suits
NCINO INC: McAlear Challenges Alleged Illegal No-Hire Agreement
NCR CORPORATION: Missreezadah Labor Suit Goes to C.D. California
NESTLE USA: Court Dismisses Walker Class Suit With Leave to Amend

NETAPP INC: Derouin Appeals Securities Suit Dismissal to 9th Cir.
NTN BUZZTIME: Facing Carlson Putative Class Suit
NUTANIX INC: Hedvat Bid to Withdraw as Lead Plaintiff Granted
OBALON THERAPEUTICS: Hearing on $3.15MM Settlement Set for April 22
ONE UP INNOVATIONS: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

OPTIO SOLUTIONS: Bush Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
ORACLE CORP: Bid to Dismiss Stockholder Suit Pending
ORRSTOWN FINANCIAL: Appeal in SEPTA Initiated Suit Pending
OTELCO INC: Continues to Defend Plumley Putative Class Suit
PARETEUM CORP: Loskot Putative Class Suit Underway

PARK SOUTH: Tejeda Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
PATHFINDER BANK: Claflin Files Suit in New York
PIZZA 21 LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ackerley Alleges
PREMIER ENVIRONMENTAL: Smith et al. Sue Over Underpaid Wages
PRESSLER & FELT: Faces Silverman FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York

PRESTIGE PLUMBING: Lee Seeks Plumbers' Unpaid Overtime Wages
PROCTORU INC: Thakkar Sues Over Illegal Collection of Biometrics
PURPLE BIOTECH: Evidentiary Hearing in Tel Aviv Suit Set for July 8
PURPLE BIOTECH: Mediation Ongoing in Tel Aviv Putative Class Suit
QUALSCRIPT LLC: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, O'Dell Suit Says

QUOTEWIZARD.COM LLC: 1st Cir. Appeal Filed in Mantha TCPA Suit
RED CRAB: Wisdom Seeks Minimum Wages & Overtime Under FLSA, NYLL
RENEWABLE ENERGY: Faces Olson Securities Suit Over Share Price Drop
ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Cezana Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida
ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Daniels Suit Moved From D. Colo. to S.D. Fla.

ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Diamond Suit Moved From M.D. to S.D. Florida
ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Feeney Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida
ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Gossett Suit Moved From C.D. Cal. to S.D. Fla.
ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Kayali Suit Moved From C.D. Cal. to S.D. Fla.
ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Kayali Suit Moved From N.D. Ill. to S.D. Fla.

ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Krasowski Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida
ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Muncy Suit Moved From D.N.J. to S.D. Florida
ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Nordeen Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida
ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Lagmanson Securities Suit Moved to S.D. Florida
ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Schaff Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida

ROBINHOOD SECURITIES: Dalton Suit Moved From N.D. Cal. to S.D. Fla.
RUSHMORE LOAN: Fernandez Suit Removed to C.D. California
RUST-OLEUM: Harris Sues Over RainBrella's Repellent Properties
SAIA MOTOR: Madrid Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to C.D. California
SALESFORCE.COM INC: Settlement Reached in Scheufele Class Suit

SETTON PISTACHIO: Remand of Ali Class Suit to State Court Denied
SHARED IMAGING: Ranger Gets Leave to File Second Amended Complaint
SLIDEBELTS INC: Faces Quezada Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
SMILEDIRECTCLUB INC: Ciccio Putative Class Suit Underway
SMILEDIRECTCLUB INC: Final OK of Benbow Settlement Set for May 19

SMILEDIRECTCLUB INC: IPO-Related Litigation Ongoing
SONY INTERACTIVE: N.D. California Sends Crawford to Arbitration
SOS LIMITED: Faces Beltran Suit Over Drop in Share Price
SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS: Class Certification in Gorss TCPA Suit Nixed
SPROUT FOODS: Simmons Files Suit in District of Connecticut

SSC GROUP: Faces D'Cruz Suit Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
STADIUM CLUB: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Jackson Alleges
STATER BROS: Armenta Suit Removed to Central District of California
STATER BROS: Biggers Suit Removed to Central District of California
STONERIDGE WHOLESALE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bertzyk Alleges

SUNPATH LTD: Hague Files TCPA Suit in District of New Jersey
SURGALIGN HOLDINGS: Bid to Dismiss Lowry Class Action Pending
SYNCHRONOSS TECHNOLOGIES: Bid to Nix ERS Hawaii Suit Pending
SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Scott TCPA Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
TALLEY INC: Faces Johnson Employment Suit in Calif. State Court

TALOS ENERGY: ILX and Castex Acquisition Related Suit Underway
TANTUS INC: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
TCC WIRELESS: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, Lanzett Claims
TD AMERITRADE: Schaff Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida
TEACHERS INSURANCE: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Haley ERISA Suit

TECHNICAL EDUCATION: Person Files Suit in M.D. Florida
TESLA INC: Faces Hiatt Class Suit Over 2019 Model Vehicles
THOMPSON CREEK: Bailey Files Suit in District of Maryland
TIPTREE INC: Continues to Defend Mullins Class Action
TRANS UNION: Lewis FCRA Suit Removed to C.D. California

TRANSUNION RENTAL: Beard Files FCRA Suit in W.D. Virginia
TRANSUNION RENTAL: Brown Files FCRA Suit in District of Maryland
TRUECAR INC: Gordon Rose Putative Class Suit Resolved
TXU ENERGY: Clewett Sues Over Unsolicited Prerecorded Calls
UNIFIN INC: Faces Biston Suit Over Deceptive Collection Letter

UNIFIN INC: Faces Lloyd Suit Over Misleading Collection Letter
UNITED SPECIALTY: Ski Pass Insurance Suit Tossed w/ Leave to Amend
UNITED STATES: Kluge Appeals Final Decision in Suit to Federal Cir.
USAA CASUALTY: Black Files Suit in Northern District of Georgia
V BROTHERS INC: Mazarie Seeks Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages

VELODYNE LIDAR: Faces Reese Securities Suit Over Common Stock Drop
VEON LTD: Bid to Nix Westway Alliance 2nd Amended Complaint Granted
VIEW HOMES: Faces Vance Suit Over Failure to Timely Pay Overtime
VIRGIN SCENT: Hand Sanitizer's Label "Deceptive," Saiki Suit Claims
WAL-MART STORES: Bid for Protective Order in Griego Suit Granted

WILHELMINA INT'L: Mediation in Shanklin and Pressley Suits Undeway
XL FLEET: Faces Kumas Securities Suit Over Share Price Drop
YALE UNIVERSITY: McNeil Appeals Discrimination Case Dismissal Order
YOUNG'S MARKET: Jimenez Labor Suit Removed to N.D. California
ZANCO PROPERTIES: Wash. App. Flips Dismissal of Lewis Class Suit

ZARA USA: Ninth Circuit Flips Dismissal of Magana Employment Suit
ZOSANO PHARMA: Stockholders Class Suits Consolidated
ZUMIEZ INC: Bid for Class Status in Herrera Case Due April 15

                            *********

20TH STREET: Faces Duran Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTIAN DURAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 20TH STREET PIZZA CORP (D/B/A LUNETTA
PIZZA), KHALIL ABUALI, KHAIRALLA MUHANNA, and LARRY DOE,
Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-02829 (S.D.N.Y., April 2, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law by failing to
compensate the Plaintiff and all other similarly situated
restaurant employees appropriate minimum wage, overtime pay, and
spread of hours premium for all hours worked.

Plaintiff Duran has been employed as a delivery worker, food
preparer and dishwasher at the Defendants' restaurant located at
245 3rd Avenue, New York, New York.

20th Street Pizza Corp is an owner and operator of a pizzeria
restaurant under the name Lunetta Pizza, located at 245 3rd Avenue,
New York, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                          
         Michael A. Faillace, Esq.
         MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
         60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
         New York, NY 10165
         Telephone: (212) 317-1200
         Facsimile: (212) 317-1620

AAR CORP: Fee Request for $800,000 in Gusinsky Trust Suit Granted
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AAR Corp. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission filed on March 12, 2021, that the court in
Vladimir Gusinsky Revocable Trust v. Anderson et.al., C.A. No.
2020-0714-KSJM, granted a stipulation and order closing the case,
which resolved the Fee Request for $800,000.

On August 28, 2020, AAR CORP. and the members of its Board of
Directors were named as defendants in a putative class action filed
in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned
Vladimir Gusinsky Revocable Trust v. Anderson et.al., C.A. No.
2020-0714-KSJM seeking declaratory and injunctive relief regarding
the Board's adoption of a stockholder rights agreement in March
2020.

On October 5, 2020, the Board terminated the Rights Agreement after
evaluating current market conditions relative to the time of the
adoption of the Rights Agreement and receiving objections from a
large institutional stockholder regarding the adoption of the
Rights Agreement.

On October 8, 2020, the Court approved the dismissal of the Action
as moot following the Company's termination of the Rights Agreement
and the joint filing by the Company and the plaintiff, Vladmir
Gusinsky Revocable Trust, requesting the Court to dismiss the
action as moot, but retain jurisdiction to consider any application
for attorneys' fees and expenses submitted by Plaintiff or its
counsel.

On March 10, 2021, the Court granted a Stipulation and Order
Closing the Case in the Action, which resolved the Fee Request for
$800,000.

The Company agreed to the Fee Request as set forth in the Order to
avoid the time and expense of further litigation with respect to
the Fee Request.

Based in Wood Dale, Ill., AAR Corp. provides products and services
to the aviation, aerospace, and defense industries worldwide.

ACCEPTANCE SOLUTIONS: Underpays Overtime Wages, Smith Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TASHA SMITH, on behalf of herself and all other plaintiffs
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ACCEPTANCE SOLUTIONS GROUP, INC.
and DAVID LANSBURGH, an individual, Defendant, Case No.
1:21-cv-01675 (N.D. Ill., March 26, 2021) is a class and collective
action complaint brought against the Defendants for their alleged
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum
Wage Law.

The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendants within the past three
years in the collection's department as a non-exempt employee.

The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant failed to include her and
other similarly situated employees commission compensation when
calculating their regular rate's of pay. As a result, despite
working in excess of 40 hours per week, the Plaintiff and other
similarly situated employees were not properly paid overtime
compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their accurate
regular rate of pay for all hours they worked over 40 in a
workweek, specifically for periods May 1, 2018 through May 15, 2018
and October 1, 2018 through October 15, 2018, the Plaintiff adds.

On behalf of herself and other similarly situated employees, the
Plaintiff seeks from the Defendants all unpaid compensation, an
additional amount equal as liquidated damages, prejudgment
interest, reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and disbursement of
this action, and other relief as the Court deems appropriate and
just.

Acceptance Solutions Group, Inc. provides a variety of wireless
payment acceptance solutions to help borrowers build long-term
financial benefits. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David J. Fish, Esq.
          Kimberly Hilton, Esq.
          John Kunze, Esq.
          Seth Matus, Esq.
          THE FISH LAW FIRM P.C.
          200 E 5th Ave., Suite 123
          Tel: (630) 355-7590
          Fax: (630) 778-0400


ADAPTHEALTH CORP: Data Breach Related Suit vs. Solara Underway
--------------------------------------------------------------
AdaptHealth Corp. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that Solara Medical Supplies
is defending a class action suit related to data breach.

On June 28, 2019, Solara Medical Supplies, which was acquired by
AdaptHealth in July 2020, determined that an unauthorized
third-party gained access to a limited number of employee Microsoft
Office accounts beginning in April 2019, as a result of a phishing
email campaign.

Solara undertook a comprehensive review of the accounts to identify
what personal information was stored within the accounts and to
whom that information related.

In connection with the incident, Solara notified potentially
affected individuals and reported this incident to law enforcement
and relevant state and federal regulators.

Investigations by applicable regulators are ongoing, and Solara is
defending a class action regarding the incident in federal court.

AdaptHealth said, "At this time, we cannot predict the outcome of
any such investigation or litigation, although responding to these
matters or any unfavorable outcome in connection therewith could
have an adverse impact on AdaptHealth’s financial condition and
results of operations following consummation of the acquisition of
Solara."

AdaptHealth Corp. is a national leader in providing patient-centric
and technology-enabled chronic disease management solutions
including home healthcare equipment, medical supplies to the home
and related services in the United States. The company is based in
Plymouth Meeting, Pennsylvania.


ADT LLC: Doty Files Suit in Southern District of Florida
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ADT, LLC. The case is
styled as Randy Doty, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. ADT, LLC doing business as: ADT Security
Services, a Delaware limited liability company; Telesforo Aviles,
an Indidivdual; Case No. 0:21-cv-60715-XXXX (S.D. Fla., April 2,
2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.

ADT LLC -- https://www.adt.com/ -- designs and manufacture security
systems. The Company offers security cameras, fire and life safety,
and home security systems, as well as other related products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher Michael Brown, Esq.
          FEARS NACHAWATI, PLLC
          5473 Blair Rd.
          Dallas, TX 75231
          Phone: (214) 461-6223
          Email: cbrown@fnlawfirm.com


ALLY FINANCIAL: Cheng Securities Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled SHANE CHENG and TERELL STERLING, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ALLY FINANCIAL INC.;
ALPACA SECURITIES LLC; CASH APP INVESTING LLC; SQUARE INC.; DOUGH
LLC; MORGAN STANLEY SMITH BARNEY LLC; E*TRADE SECURITIES LLC;
E*TRADE FINANCIAL CORPORATION; E*TRADE FINANCIAL HOLDINGS, LLC;
ETORO USA SECURITIES, INC.; FREETRADE, LTD.; INTERACTIVE BROKERS
LLC; M1 FINANCE, LLC; OPEN TO THE PUBLIC INVESTING, INC.; ROBINHOOD
FINANCIAL, LLC; ROBINHOOD MARKETS, INC.; ROBINHOOD SECURITIES, LLC;
IG GROUP HOLDINGS PLC; TASTYWORKS, INC.; TD AMERITRADE, INC.; THE
CHARLES SCHWAB CORPORATION; CHARLES SCHWAB & CO. INC.; FF TRADE
REPUBLIC GROWTH, LLC; TRADING 212 LTD.; TRADING 212 UK LTD.; WEBULL
FINANCIAL LLC; FUMI HOLDINGS, INC.; STASH FINANCIAL, INC.; BARCLAYS
BANK PLC; CITADEL ENTERPRISE AMERICAS, LLC; CITADEL SECURITIES LLC;
MELVIN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LP; SEQUOIA CAPITAL OPERATIONS LLC; APEX
CLEARING CORPORATION; THE DEPOSITORY TRUST & CLEARING CORPORATION,
Case No. 4:21-cv-00781, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida on April 6, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-21318 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing, negligence, negligence per
se, breach of fiduciary duty, constructive fraud, and violations of
the Sherman Act, the California Cartwright Act, and the California
Business and Professions Code by conspiring to one another to
prevent retail investors from buying further stock in the market to
mitigate the Defendants' exposure in their short positions and
forcing retail investors to sell their relevant securities at lower
prices.

Ally Financial Inc. is a financial services company, with its
headquarters located at Ally Detroit Center 500, Woodward Ave.,
Floor 10, Detroit, Michigan.

Alpaca Securities LLC is a financial services company, with its
headquarters at 20 N San Mateo Drive Suite 10, San Mateo,
California.

Cash App Investing LLC is a financial services company
headquartered at 920, SW 6th Avenue Ste. 1200, Portland, Oregon.

Square Inc. is a financial services company, with its headquarters
located at 1455 Market Street, Suite 600, San Francisco,
California.

Dough LLC is a financial services company, with its headquarters
located at 327 N. Aberdeen Street, Chicago, Illinois.

Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC is a financial services company,
with its headquarters located at 1585 Broadway Avenue, New York,
New York.

E*Trade Securities LLC is a financial services company, with its
headquarters at 671 North Glebe Road, Ballston Tower, Arlington,
Texas.

E*Trade Financial Corporation is a financial services company, with
its headquarters at 671 North Glebe Road, Ballston Tower,
Arlington, Texas.

E*Trade Financial Holdings, LLC is a financial services company,
with its headquarters at 671 North Glebe Road, Ballston Tower,
Arlington, Texas.

Etoro USA Securities, INC. is a financial services company,
headquartered at 221 River St., 9th floor, Hoboken, New Jersey.

Freetrade, Ltd. is a financial services company, headquartered at
32-38 Leman Street, London, United Kingdom.

Interactive Brokers LLC is a financial services company,
headquartered at 1 Pickwick Plaza, Greenwich, Connecticut.

M1 Finance, LLC is a financial services company, headquartered at
200 North La Salle Street, Suite 800, Chicago, Illinois.

Open To The Public Investing, Inc. is a financial services company,
headquartered at 1 State Street Plaza, 10th Floor, New York, New
York.

Robinhood Markets, Inc. is a financial services company, with its
principal place of business at 85 Willow Road, Menlo Park,
California.

Robinhood Financial, LLC is a financial services company, with its
principal place of business at 85 Willow Road, Menlo Park,
California.

Robinhood Securities, LLC is a financial services company, with its
principal place of business at 500 Colonial Center Parkway, Suite
100, Lake Mary, Florida.

Barclays Bank PLC is a financial services company, headquartered at
745 7th Ave New York, New York.

Stash Financial, Inc. is a financial services company,
headquartered at 500 7th Avenue,18th Floor, New York, New York.

IG Group Holdings PLC is a Delaware public limited company and
ultimate corporate parent of Tastyworks, Inc., headquartered at 200
West Jackson Blvd., Suite 1450, Chicago, Illinois.

Tastyworks, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of IG Group Holdings
PLC, headquartered at 100 West Fulton Market Street, Suite 220,
Chicago, Illinois.

The Charles Schwab Corporation is a financial services company,
with its principal place of business at 211 Main Street, San
Francisco, California.

Charles Schwab & Co. Inc. is a financial services company, with its
principal place of business at 211 Main Street, San Francisco,
California.

TD Ameritrade, Inc. is a financial services company, with its
principal place of business in Illinois.

FF Trade Republic Growth, LLC is a financial services company,
headquartered at One Letterman Drive, Building D, 5th Floor, San
Francisco, California.

Trading 212 Ltd. is a financial services company, headquartered at
3 Lachezar Stanchev Str., Litex Tower, Floor 10, Sofia 1797,
Bulgaria.

Trading 212 UK Ltd. is a financial services company, headquartered
at 107 Cheapside, London, United Kingdom.

Fumi Holdings, Inc. is a financial services company, headquartered
in Hunan, China.

Webull Financial LLC is a financial services company, headquartered
at 44 Wall Street, Ste 501, New York, New York.

Citadel Enterprise Americas LLC is a financial services company,
headquartered at 131 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois.

Citadel Securities LLC is a financial services company,
headquartered at 131 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois.

Melvin Capital Management LP is a financial services company,
headquartered at 535 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor, New York, New
York.

Sequoia Capital Operations LLC is a financial services company,
headquartered at 2800 Sand Hill Road, Suite 101, Menlo Park,
California.

Apex Clearing Corporation is a financial services company,
headquartered at One Dallas Center, 350 N. St. Paul, Suite 1300,
Dallas, Texas.

The Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation is a financial services
company, headquartered at 55 Water Street, New York, New York.
[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:          
         
         Joseph R. Saveri, Esq.
         Steven N. Williams, Esq.
         Christopher K.L. Young, Esq.
         Anupama K. Reddy, Esq.
         JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, INC.
         601 California Street, Suite 1000
         San Francisco, CA 94108
         Telephone: (415) 500-6800
         Facsimile: (415) 395-9940
         E-mail: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com
                 swilliams@saverilawfirm.com
                 cyoung@saverilawfirm.com
                 areddy@saverilawfirm.com

AMAZON.COM INC: Requires Pre-Employment Drug Test, Thomas Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL THOMAS, Individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. AMAZON.COM, INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-01325
(E.D.N.Y., March 12, 2021) asserts against Amazon, on behalf of the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals, a claim under
the New York City Human Rights Law for Amazon requiring a
pre-employment drug test for marijuana as part of its hiring
process.

The Plaintiff contends that immediately following this interview,
he was brought to a separate room where a drug test was performed
via a mouth swab. The drug test was taken and processed by a third
party at the direction of Amazon. Later that same day, he received
a contingent job offer for the Sortation Associate position. The
offer stated that it was contingent upon passing a drug test, among
other requirements. This communication made clear that the
pre-employment drug screening was a condition of employment with
Amazon, the suit says.

Plaintiff Michael Thomas applied for employment with Defendant
Amazon as a Sortation Associate to work at its Staten Island, New
York warehouse, but was denied employment due to a pre-employment
screen drug test.

Amazon.com, Inc. is an American multinational technology company
based in Seattle, Washington, which focuses on e-commerce, cloud
computing, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas B. Lipsky, Esq.
          Christopher H. Lowe, Esq.
          Alfons D'Auria, Esq.
          LIPSKY LOWE LLP
          420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
          New York, NY 10017-6705
          Telephone: (212) 392.4772
          E-mail: doug@lipskylowe.com
                  chris@lipskylowe.com
                  alfons@lipskylowe.com

AMAZON.COM INC: Sells Counterfeit Dietary Supplements, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
JEREMIAH DELGADO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly v. AMAZON.COM, INC, Case No. 8:21-cv-00477 (C.D. Cal.,
March 12, 2021) challenges the Defendant's practice of selling
counterfeit glucosamine sulfate supplements.

The Plaintiff contends that the products are marketed as
glucosamine sulfate when, as a matter of fact, no glucosamine
sulfate is found in the products. The Plaintiff brings this class
action on behalf of himself and all purchasers in California
against Defendant of any products sold and/or supplied by the
Defendant that represent on their labeling that they contain
Glucosamine Sulfate ("Glucosamine Sulfate Products), for breach of
express warranty, violations of the California Unfair Competition
Law, violations of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and
violations of the California False Advertising Law.

The Plaintiff also brings this class action on behalf of himself
and all purchasers nationwide of the Defendant's Glucosamine
Sulfate Products for breach of warranty and unjust enrichment.

The dietary supplement market in this country is massive, with
consumers spending billions of dollars every year on these
products. Glucosamine is one of the most commonly purchased dietary
supplements, with annual revenue in the hundreds of millions of
dollars.

Glucosamine typically comes in two formulations: glucosamine
sulfate (Glucosamine Sulfate) and glucosamine hydrochloride
(Glucosamine Hydrochloride). Glucosamine Sulfate is clinically
preferred and is believed to be more effective, and, accordingly,
consumers typically choose Glucosamine Sulfate. It therefore sells
for more than other glucosamine products.

Plaintiff Delgado is a citizen of the state of California, residing
in Orange County, California. Plaintiff purchased a bottle of
Solimo Glucosamine Sulfate 2KCl 1000 mg, a dietary supplement
manufactured, marketed, and/or sold by the Defendant.

Amazon.com manufactures, markets and sells various Solimo and 365
Everyday Value dietary supplements to consumers nationwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Francis J. "Casey" Flynn, Jr.
          LAW OFFICE OF FRANCIS J. FLYNN, JR.
          422 South Curson Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90036-3169
          Telephone: (314) 662-2836
          Facsimile: (855) 710-7706
          E-mail: casey@lawofficeflynn.com

AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Class Cert. Bid in NY Securities Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 12, 2021,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the motion for
class certification filed in the consolidated putative class action
suit before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York is pending.

On January 12, 2018 and January 19, 2018, two putative federal
securities class actions, captioned Hawaii Structural Ironworkers
Pension Trust Fund v. AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 1:18-cv-00299-AJN, and Nichols v. AMC Entertainment
Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-00510-AJN, respectively,
were filed against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

The Actions, which name certain of the Company's officers and
directors and, in the case of the Hawaii Action, the underwriters
of the Company's February 8, 2017 secondary public offering, as
defendants, assert claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 with respect to alleged material
misstatements and omissions in the registration statement for the
secondary public offering and in certain other public disclosures.


On May 30, 2018, the court consolidated the Actions.

On January 22, 2019, defendants moved to dismiss the Second Amended
Class Action Complaint. On September 23, 2019, the court granted
the motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part.

On March 2, 2020, plaintiffs moved to certify the purported class.
The motion was fully briefed on September 21, 2020.

AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc., through its subsidiaries,
involved in the theatrical exhibition business. The company owns,
operates, or has interests in theatres. The company was founded in
1920 and is headquartered in Leawood, Kansas. AMC Entertainment
Holdings, Inc. is a subsidiary of Dalian Wanda Group Co., Ltd.


AMERICA SPECIALTY: Misclassifies Pharmacists, Cooper Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
KENNETH COOPER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN SPECIALTY PHARMACY, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-00264 (D. New Mex., March 24, 2021) is
a collective action complaint brought against the Defendant for its
alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New
Mexico Minimum Wage Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a Pharmacist from
June 2017 until November 2019.

According to the complaint, the Defendant misclassified the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated as exempt from the FLSA. The
Defendant purportedly paid them on a salary basis, but the
Defendant allegedly deducted money from their pharmacists' pay if
they took a day off work or worked fewer than 40 hours in a week.
In addition, despite regularly working over 40 hours in a one-week
period, the Defendant deprived them of their lawfully earned
overtime compensation at one and one-half times their regular rate
of pay for all hours they worked over 40 in a workweek, the suit
says.

The Plaintiff seeks to recover from the Defendant payment of all
unpaid overtime premium for himself and all other similarly
situated pharmacists, as well as liquidated damages, pre-judgment
interest, attorneys' fees and litigation costs, and other relief as
the Court may deem just and proper.

American Specialty Pharmacy, Inc. operates pharmacies throughout
the U.S., including in New Mexico. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Josh Sanford, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          Kirkpatrick Plaza
          10800 Financial Centre Parkway, Suite 510
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Tel: (501) 221-0088
          Fax: (888) 787-2040
          E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


AMERICAN CENTER: Hedges Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Center For
Conflict Resolution Institute, Inc. The case is styled as Donna
Hedges, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly
situated v. American Center For Conflict Resolution Institute,
Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-02958 (S.D.N.Y., April 6, 2021).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

American Center For Conflict Resolution Institute, Inc. was founded
in 1998. The company's line of business includes Schools offering
miscellaneous educational courses and services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 E. 18th Street, Suite Phr
          New York, NY 10003
          Phone: (212) 228-9795
          Email: michael@gottlieb.legal


AMERILIST INC: Candelario Files TCPA Suit in California
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Amerilist, Inc. The
case is styled as Jay Candelario, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Amerilist, Inc., Case No.
3:21-cv-00586-JLS-JLB (S.D. Cal., April 5, 2021).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.

AmeriList -- https://www.amerilist.com/ -- is a one-stop mailing
lists provider for all your business direct mailing lists,
telemarketing lists, targeted mailing lists and purchase email
lists.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC
          245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Phone: (800) 400-6808
          Fax: (800) 520-5523
          Email: ak@kazlg.com


AMPHASTAR PHARMA: Brenes Class Suit Settled for $1 Million
----------------------------------------------------------
Amphastar Pharmaceuticals Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 15, 2021,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company was
able to successfully resolve the claims, as well as Brenes'
personal employment claims at mediation for $1 million.

On September 11, 2019, a former employee, Raquel Brenes, initiated
an employment litigation against International Medication Systems,
Limited (IMS) et al. by filing a Complaint in the Superior Court of
California, Los Angeles County alleging individual and class action
claims for alleged violations of various California labor laws
pertaining to wage and hour, and other state laws.

On September 18, 2019, Brenes filed a First Amended Complaint
maintaining the individual and class action claims. On January 21,
2020, Brenes filed a Second Amended Complaint that alleges only
Private Attorney General Act, or PAGA, claims and omitted the
individual and class action claims.

On February 9, 2021, the Company was able to successfully resolve
these claims, as well as Brenes' personal employment claims at
mediation for $1.0 million.

The agreement is still subject to approval by the court.

The Company accrued the amount of $1.0 million as of December 31,
2020.

Based in Rancho Cucamonga, California, Amphastar Pharmaceuticals
Inc. manufactures injectable and inhaled drugs and drug delivery
systems. The Company also offers contractual manufacturing
services, including labeling and packaging, cold storage, and
aseptic filling.

ANAPLAN INC: Bid to Dismiss Sakkal Putative Class Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Anaplan, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 12, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company's motion to
dismiss the putative securities class action suit entitled, Sakkal
v. Anaplan, Inc., et al., is pending.

On August 24, 2020, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a
putative securities class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, captioned
Grobler v. Anaplan, Inc., et al., 3:20-cv-05959, against the
Company and certain of the Company's executive officers. The Court
appointed a lead plaintiff on November 12, 2020, and on January 6,
2021, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint, captioned
Sakkal v. Anaplan, Inc., et al.

The amended complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) and
Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
purportedly on behalf of all persons who purchased Anaplan, Inc.
securities between November 21, 2019, and February 26, 2020,
inclusive.

The claims are based upon allegations that the defendants
misrepresented and/or omitted material information in certain of
the Company's prior public filings regarding the business,
operations, and prospects of the Company.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
March 8, 2021.

Anaplan said, "At this point, no discovery has occurred in this
case. The case is still in the preliminary stages, and it is not
possible for the Company to quantify the extent of potential
liability to the defendants, if any. The Company believes that the
lawsuit lacks merit and intends to vigorously defend the action.
The Company cannot predict the outcome of or is not able to
reasonably estimate the amount or range of possible loss from the
above described matter."

Anaplan, Inc. is pioneering the category of Connected Planning. The
company's platform enables organizations to make better decisions
and to plan and execute their ongoing digital transformation to
compete in todays digital economy. The company is based in San
Francisco, California.

ANNIE'S HOMEGROWN: McCarthy Files Suit in N.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Annie's Homegrown,
Inc. The case is styled as Kathryn McCarthy, Gabrielle Stuve, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Annie's
Homegrown, Inc., Case No. 3:21-cv-02415-AGT (N.D. Cal., April 2,
2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Annie's Homegrown -- https://www.annies.com/ -- is an American
organic food company owned by General Mills.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Liskow, Esq.
          CALCATERRA POLLACK LLP
          1140 Avenue of the Americas, 9th Floor
          New York, NY 10036-5803
          Phone: (212) 899-1761
          Email: mliskow@calcaterrapollack.com


ANTARES PHARMA: Lungu Appeals Securities Suit Dismissal to 3rd Cir.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Serghei Lungu, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled SMITH v. ANTARES PHARMA,
INC. et al., Case No. 3-17-cv-08945, in the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Randy Smith
filed a complaint in the District of New Jersey, on behalf of a
putative class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
Antares securities between December 21, 2016 and October 12, 2017,
inclusive, asserting claims for purported violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
against Antares, Robert F. Apple and Fred M. Powell.

The Plaintiff contends that Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Antares had provided
insufficient data to the FDA in connection with the NDA for
XYOSTEDTM; and (ii) accordingly, Antares had overstated the
approval prospects for XYOSTEDTM.

On July 27, 2018, the Court entered an order appointing Serghei
Lungu as lead plaintiff, Pomerantz LLP as lead counsel, and Lite
DePalma Greenberg, LLC as liaison counsel for plaintiff.

The Plaintiffs are seeking a review of the Court's Opinion and
Order dated February 26, 2021, granting the Defendants' motion to
dismiss the consolidated third amended class action complaint.

The appellate case is captioned as Serghei Lungu, et al. v. Antares
Pharma Inc, et al., Case No. 21-1624, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on March 31, 2021. [BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants SERGHEI LUNGU and RANDY SMITH, Individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented
by:

          Hui J. Chang, Esq.
          J. Alexander Hood, II, Esq.
          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          E-mail: ahood@pomlaw.com  

               - and -

          Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          10 South LaSalle Street, Suite 3505
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 377-1181
          E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com
          
               - and -

          Bruce D. Greenberg, Esq.
          LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG
          570 Broad Street, Suite 1201
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 623-3000
          E-mail: bgreenberg@litedepalma.com

Defendants-Appellees ANTARES PHARMA INC., ROBERT F. APPLE, FRED M.
POWELL, and LEONARD S. JACOB are represented by:

          David A. Kotler, Esq.
          DECHERT LLP
          502 Carnegie Center, Suite 104
          Princeton, NJ 08540
          Telephone: (609) 955-3226
          E-mail: david.kotler@dechert.com

APPLE INC: $5-Mil. in Attorneys' Fees Awarded in Grace Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHRISTINA GRACE, et al., Plaintiffs v. APPLE, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 17-CV-00551-LHK (N.D. Cal.), Judge Lucy H. Koh
of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
San Jose Division, grants in part and denies in part the Class
Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees.

The Class Counsel moves for fee award substantially greater than
the 25% benchmark rate.  Specifically, the Class Counsel seeks 30%
of the settlement fund ($5.4 million).  In addition, the Class
Counsel seeks reimbursement of $1,090,393.14 in expenses and $7,500
service awards to each of the two Class Representatives.

Judge Koh held a hearing on the motion on Feb. 8, 2021.  In
response to her questions at the hearing, the Class Counsel filed
four supplemental declarations regarding attorneys' fees on Feb.
19, 2021.  On Feb. 26, 2021, the Defendant filed an opposition to
the Class Counsel's supplemental declarations; and the Class
Counsel filed a reply on March 5, 2021.

The Judge ultimately concludes that an award between the 25%
benchmark and the Class Counsel's 30% request is appropriate.
Specifically, she awards 28% of the settlement fund, which yields
fees of $5.04 million and an adjusted multiplier of 0.72.  The
Judge reaches this award based on consideration of the following
factors: (1) the skills displayed by the Class Counsel; (2) the
risks taken by the Class Counsel; (3) the result achieved for the
class; and (4) a lodestar cross-check.

As for expenses, the Judge concludes that nearly all of the Class
Counsel's requested reimbursement is reasonable.  She notes that
some of the unreasonable expenses are for lodging in San Jose and
its suburbs and not just in San Francisco.  For instance, the Class
Counsel seeks reimbursement for $768.59/night at the Aloft in
Cupertino, $638.91/night at the Doubletree in San Jose,
$613.90/night at the Hotel Adagio in San Francisco, and
$602.94/night at the Sheraton in Palo Alto.  The Judge will not
require the class to pay for unreasonable lodging expenses.

Accordingly, of the $18,369.98 in unreasonable hotel accommodations
identified by Apple, the Judge reduces the Class Counsel's
reimbursement by 40%, which is $7,348.  She orders that
$1,083,045.14 in unreimbursed costs be paid from the settlement
fund to the Class Counsel.

Lastly, the Judge approves $7,500 service awards for both the Class
Representatives, Christina Grace and Ken Potter.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 31, 2021 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/exmdbyv9 from Leagle.com.


APPLE INC: Viglietti Class Suit Moved From W.D. Tenn. to N.D. Cal.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled RICO VIGLIETTI, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. APPLE, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-02773,
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Tennessee to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California on April 2, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 5:21-cv-02412-EJD to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged practice of promoting,
enabling, and profiting from games downloaded from the App Store
that constitute illegal gambling pursuant to Section 29-19-104 of
the Code of Tennessee.

Apple, Inc. is an American multinational technology company, with
its principal place of business in Cupertino, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
         
         D. Frank Davis, Esq.
         John E. Norris, Esq.
         Wesley W. Barnett, Esq.
         DAVIS & NORRIS, LLP
         2154 Highland Avenue South
         Birmingham, AL 35205
         Telephone: (205) 930-9900
         Facsimile: (205) 930-9989
         E-mail: fdavis@davisnorris.com
                 jnorris@davisnorris.com
                 wbarnett@davisnorris.com

ARIEL COMMUNITY: Misclassifies Peer Supporters, Brewster Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
NIKKI BREWSTER, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ARIEL COMMUNITY CARE, LLC, DONNIE MANN and
PIERRE PICKENS, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-00256 (M.D.N.C., March
29, 2021) brings this collective and class action against the
Defendants to recover unpaid overtime compensation pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a peer support
specialist from approximately September 2017 until September 2019.

The Plaintiff claims that the Defendants misclassified her and
other similarly situated workers as independent contractors until
approximately January 2019. Although she regularly worked more than
40 hours in a workweek, she was only paid straight time. The
Defendants denied her of overtime premium at the rate of one and
one-half times her regular rate of pay for all hours she worked
over 40 in a workweek. In addition, the Defendants did not
compensate her for her travel time between Defendants' clients, the
Plaintiff adds.

Ariel Community Care, LLC operates a mental support agency with
offices in Yanceyville, Wilmington and Marion, North Carolina, and
Douglasville, Georgia. Donnie Mann and Pierre Pickens have been
actively involved in managing the operations of the Ariel Community
Care and had control over the company's pay policies and the
unlawful policies and practices alleged. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian L. Kinsley, Esq.
          CRUMLEY ROBERTS, LLP
          2400 Freeman Mill Road, Suite 200
          Greensboro, NC 27406
          Tel: (336) 333-9899
          Fax: (336) 333-9894
          E-mail: blkinsley@crumleyroberts.com

                - and –

          Philip Bohrer, Esq.
          Scott E. Brady, Esq.
          BOHRER BRADY, LLC
          8712 Jefferson Highway, Suite B
          Baton Rouge, LA 70809
          Tel: (225) 925-5297
          Fax: (225) 231-7000
          E-mail: phil@bohrerbrady.com
                  scott@bohrerbrady.com


ASHFORD HOSPITALITY: Continues to Defend Membrives Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ashford Hospitality Trust, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2021,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that  Remington
Lodging & Hospitality, LLC, a company subsidiary, continues to
defend a class action suit initiated by Pedro Membrives.

On December 4, 2015, Pedro Membrives filed a class action lawsuit
against HHC TRS FP Portfolio LLC, Remington Lodging & Hospitality,
LLC, Remington Holdings LLC, Mark A. Sharkey, Archie Bennett, Jr.,
Monty J. Bennett, Christopher Peckham, and any other related
entities in the Supreme Court of New York, Nassau County,
Commercial Division.

On August 30, 2016, the complaint was amended to add Michele Spero
as a Plaintiff and Remington Long Island Employers, LLC as a
defendant.

The lawsuit is captioned Pedro Membrives and Michele Spero,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. HHC TRS
FP Portfolio LLC, Remington Lodging & Hospitality, LLC, Remington
Holdings LLC, Remington Long Island Employers, LLC, et al., Index
No. 607828/2015 (Sup. Ct. Nassau Cty.).

The plaintiffs allege that the owner and management company of the
Hyatt Regency Long Island hotel violated New York law by improperly
retaining service charges rather than distributing them to
employees.

In 2017, the class was certified. On July 24, 2018, the trial court
granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on liability.

The defendants appealed the summary judgment to the New York State
Appellate Division, Second Department, and the appeal is still
pending.

By Order dated May 7, 2020, the Second Department referred the
matter for mandatory mediation. The parties participated in
mediation on June 22, 2020, however, they were not able to arrive
at mutually acceptable settlement terms.

Notwithstanding the pending appeal on the summary judgment issue,
the trial court continued the litigation with respect to the
plaintiffs' alleged damages, however, the trial judge retired at
the end of 2020 without deciding any issues relating to damages.

The case has been re-assigned, and the new trial judge has directed
the parties to explore another round of mediation. If this effort
is unsuccessful, the trial court will likely schedule a hearing on
the damages issue.

The defendants intend to vigorously defend against the plaintiffs'
claims and the Company does not believe that an unfavorable outcome
is probable.

Ashford said, "If, however, the plaintiffs' motion for summary
judgment on liability is upheld and the Company is unsuccessful in
any further appeals, the Company estimates that damages could range
between approximately $5.8 million and $11.9 million-plus interest
and attorneys' fees. As of December 31, 2020, no amounts have been
accrued.

Ashford Hospitality Trust, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, is
an externally-advised REIT. While the company's portfolio currently
consists of upscale hotels and upper upscale full-service hotels,
the company's investment strategy is predominantly focused on
investing in upper upscale full-service hotels in the U.S. that
have a revenue per available room ("RevPAR") generally less than
two times the U.S. national average. The company is based in
Dallas, Texas.


ASHFORD HOSPITALITY: Employment Class Suit vs Subsidiary Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ashford Hospitality Trust, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2021,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that  a company
subsidiary continues to defend an employment class action suit in
California.

A class action lawsuit has been filed against one of the Company's
hotel management companies alleging violations of certain
California employment laws, which class action affects nine hotels
owned by subsidiaries of the Company.

The court has entered an order granting class certification with
respect to: (1) a statewide class of non-exempt employees of our
manager who were allegedly deprived of rest breaks as a result of
our manager's previous written policy requiring its employees to
stay on premises during rest breaks; and (2) a derivative class of
non-exempt former employees of our manager who were not paid for
allegedly missed breaks upon separation from employment.

Notices to potential class members were sent out on February 2,
2021. Potential class members have until April 4, 2021 to opt out
of the class.

Ashford said, "While we believe it is reasonably possible that we
may incur a loss associated with this litigation, because the class
size has not yet been determined and there is uncertainty under
California law with respect to a significant legal issue, we do not
believe that any potential loss to the Company is reasonably
estimable at this time. As of December 31, 2020, no amounts have
been accrued."

Ashford Hospitality Trust, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, is
an externally-advised REIT. While the company's portfolio currently
consists of upscale hotels and upper upscale full-service hotels,
the company's investment strategy is predominantly focused on
investing in upper upscale full-service hotels in the U.S. that
have a revenue per available room ("RevPAR") generally less than
two times the U.S. national average. The company is based in
Dallas, Texas.


ASPEN AMERICAN: Denies Coverage Due to COVID-19 Losses, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTIAN P. MANLEY DDS; CONNIE M. MANUEL DDS; and KATHLEEN R.
SATURAY DDS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. ASPEN AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No.
2:21-cv-00342 (W.D. Wash., March 12, 2021) arises from Defendant's
blanket denial of all claims based on business interruption, income
loss or closures related to COVID-19 and/or orders issued by
Governor Inslee, over Governors, and/or other civil authorities.

Due to COVID-19 and a state-ordered mandated closure, the
Plaintiffs during a period in 2020 could not provide dental
services. The Plaintiffs intended to rely on their business
insurance to maintain business income in case of an insured loss.
This lawsuit is filed to ensure that the Plaintiffs and other
similarly-situated policyholders receive the insurance benefits to
which they are entitled and for which they paid, the suit says.

The Plaintiffs' business property includes property owned and/or
leased by Plaintiffs and used for their specified business
purposes, for general business purposes, and for the specific
purpose of dental orthodontics and other related business
activities. Access to some or all of this property and premises was
prohibited by the governmental response to COVID-19.

The Plaintiffs operate dental business.

Aspen is an insurance carrier incorporated and domiciled in the
State of Texas, with its principal place of business located in
Rocky Hill, Connecticut.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Amy Williams-Derry, Esq.
          Lynn L. Sarko, Esq.
          Ian S. Birk, Esq.
          Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq.
          Irene M. Hecht, Esq.
          Nathan Nanfelt, Esq.
          Gabriel E. Verdugo, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
          1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-1900
          Facsimile: (206) 623-3384
          E-mail: awilliams-derry@kellerrohrback.com
                  lsarko@kellerrohrback.com
                  ibirk@kellerrohrback.com
                  gcappio@kellerrohrback.com
                  ihecht@kellerrohrback.com
                  nnanfelt@kellerrohrback.com
                  gverdugo@kellerrohrback.com

ASPEN AMERICAN: Elder Seeks Payment for COVID-19 Business Losses
----------------------------------------------------------------
TIMOTHY E. ELDER, DDS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ASPEN AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant, Case 3:21-cv-00429-AVC (D. Conn., Mar. 29, 2021) is a
class action for declaratory and injunctive relief and breach of
contract on behalf of purchasers of Aspen's insurance policy
written on coverage form ASPDTPR001 (09/17).

According to the complaint, as a result of COVID-19 and orders by
civil authorities, the Plaintiff and the Class Members sustained
substantial losses. Seeking indemnity for those losses, they have
tendered claims for coverage under the policies they purchased from
Aspen. Aspen denied the Plaintiff's and the Class Members' claims
despite Aspen's policies' omission of a virus or pandemic
exclusion. Indeed, Aspen has taken a firm position that the policy
purchased by the Plaintiff, including Aspen's Business Interruption
Coverage Form, does not provide coverage for COVID-19-related
property losses. It has denied the Plaintiff's requests for
coverage and all Class Members' claims, on identical grounds,
without conducting any individualized investigation, the suit
asserts.

Aspen American Insurance Co. operates as an insurance company. The
Company provides fire and casualty insurance services to its
clients. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd Steigman, Esq.
          MADSEN, PRESTLEY & PARENTEAU, LLC
          402 Asylum Street
          Hartford, CT 06103
          Telephone: (860) 246-2466
          Facsimile: (860) 246-1794
          E-mail: tsteigman@mppjustice.com

               -and-

          Cyrus Mehri, Esq.
          Jay Angoff, Esq.
          Joshua Karsh, Esq.
          C. Ezra Bronstein, Esq.
          MEHRI & SKALET, PLLC
          1250 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite
          300 Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 822-5100
          Facsimile: (202) 822-4997
          E-mail: cmehri@findjustice.com
                  jangoff@findjustice.com
                  jkarsh@findjustice.com
                  ebronstein@findjustice.com


ASSERTIO HOLDINGS: Glumetza(R) Related Class Suit Underway
----------------------------------------------------------
Assertio Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 12, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues to
defend a class action suit related to the drug Glumetza(R).

On May 20, 2020, the company completed a Merger with Zyla Life
Sciences pursuant to the Agreement and Plan of Merger dated March
16, 2020. Prior to the Zyla Merger, pursuant to the Merger
Agreement, the company completed a corporate reorganization whereby
Assertio Holdings, Inc. became the parent company of wholly-owned
Assertio Therapeutics, Inc. and is deemed successor issuer to
Assertio Therapeutics, Inc. under applicable securities laws.

Antitrust class actions and related direct antitrust actions have
been filed in the Northern District of California against the
Company and several other defendants relating to our former drug
Glumetza(R).

The named class representatives in the currently pending actions
include Meijer, Inc., Bi-Lo, LLC, Winn-Dixie Logistics, Inc., City
of Providence, and KPH Healthcare Services, Inc.

These class representatives seek to represent a putative class of
direct purchasers of Glumetza.

In addition, several retailers, including CVS Pharmacy, Inc., Rite
Aid Corporation, Walgreen Co., the Kroger Co., the Albertsons
Companies, Inc., H-E-B, L.P., and Hy-Vee, Inc., have filed
substantially similar direct antitrust claims based on alleged
assignments of claims from direct purchaser wholesalers.

On December 23, 2019, the Company filed a motion to dismiss all
claims in the actions. That motion was heard by the District Court
on February 20, 2020. On March 5, 2020 the District Court issued an
order denying the motion to dismiss.

However, based on the order on the motion, claims previously filed
by a putative class of end payor plaintiffs were voluntarily
dismissed.

On July 30, 2020, Humana Inc. also filed a complaint against the
Company in the Northern District of California alleging similar
claims related to Glumetza(R).

On February 2, 2021, the District Court dismissed Humana's
state-law antitrust claims, but permitted Humana to proceed on its
federal claims. On February 8, 2021, Humana refiled those state-law
claims against the Company and several other defendants in the
Superior Court for the State of California in the County of
Alameda.

These antitrust cases arise out of a Settlement and License
Agreement that the Company, Santarus, Inc. and Lupin Limited
entered into in February 2012 that resolved patent infringement
litigation filed by the Company against Lupin regarding Lupin's
Abbreviated New Drug Application for generic 500 mg and 1000 mg
tablets of Glumetza.

The antitrust plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the
Settlement violated the antitrust laws because it allegedly
included a "reverse payment" that caused Lupin to delay its entry
in the market with a generic version of Glumetza.

The alleged "reverse payment" is an alleged commitment on the part
of the settling parties not to launch an authorized generic version
of Glumetza for a certain period. The antitrust plaintiffs allege
that the Company and its co-defendants, which include Lupin as well
as Bausch Health (the alleged successor in interest to Santarus)
are liable for damages under the antitrust laws for overcharges
that the antitrust plaintiffs allege they paid when they purchased
the branded version of Glumetza(R) due to delayed generic entry.
Plaintiffs seek treble damages for alleged past harm, attorneys'
fees and costs.

In the federal litigations, fact and expert discovery have now
closed, and the parties are currently briefing summary judgment
motions. The federal court granted class certification in the
direct purchaser action on August 15, 2020.

In the event that the federal case proceeds to trial, that trial is
expected to occur on or about October 2021.

With respect to the newly-filed Humana case in California state
court, the next step is for the defendants to file a motion to
dismiss.

The Company intends to defend itself vigorously in these matters.

Assertio Holdings, Inc. a commercial pharmaceutical company
offering differentiated products to patients. The company's
commercial portfolio of branded products focuses on three areas:
neurology; hospital; and pain and inflammation. The company is
based in Lake Forest, Illinois.

ASSERTIO HOLDINGS: Huang Suit Stayed Pending Settlement Discussions
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Assertio Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 12, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the court in Huang v.
Depomed et al., No. 4:17-cv-4830-JST, N.D. Cal., granted the
parties' joint motion to stay the appeal pending settlement
discussions.

On August 23, 2017, the Company, two individuals who formerly
served as its chief executive officer and president, and its former
chief financial officer were named as defendants in a purported
federal securities law class action filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California.

The action (Huang v. Depomed et al., No. 4:17-cv-4830-JST, N.D.
Cal.) alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
relating to certain prior disclosures of the Company about its
business, compliance, and operational policies and practices
concerning the sales and marketing of its opioid products and
contends that the conduct supporting the alleged violations
affected the value of Company common stock and is seeking damages
and other relief.

In an amended complaint filed on February 6, 2018, the lead
plaintiff (referred to in its pleadings as the Depomed Investor
Group), which seeks to represent a class consisting of all
purchasers of Company common stock between July 29, 2015 and August
7, 2017, asserted the same claims arising out of the same and
similar disclosures against the Company and the same individuals as
were involved in the original complaint.

The Company and the individuals filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint on April 9, 2018. On March 18, 2019, the District
Court granted the motion to dismiss without prejudice, and the
plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on May 2, 2019.

The second amended complaint asserted the same claims arising out
of the same and similar disclosures against the Company and the
same individuals as were involved in the original complaint.

The Company and the individuals filed a motion to dismiss the
second amended complaint on June 17, 2019, and the District Court
granted that motion with prejudice on March 11, 2020.

On April 9, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The parties
completed their briefing of the appeal on December 14, 2020.

On March 1, 2021, the court granted to the parties' joint motion to
stay the appeal pending settlement discussions.

The Company believes that the action is without merit. The Company
is unable to predict the outcome of this matter.

Assertio Holdings, Inc. a commercial pharmaceutical company
offering differentiated products to patients. The company's
commercial portfolio of branded products focuses on three areas:
neurology; hospital; and pain and inflammation. The company is
based in Lake Forest, Illinois.


AT&T INC: Third Circuit Appeal Filed in Kantz Discrimination Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants AT&T Inc, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled Patrice Kantz, on behalf of herself
individually and on behalf of those similarly situated v. AT&T,
INC., AT&T SERVICES, INC., Case No. 2-20-cv-00531, in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
brought against the Defendants for violation of the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act, as amended by the Older Workers
Benefits Protection Act, and the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants undertook a course of
action designed to terminate the employment of older workers
through a centrally planned workforce reduction in its Technology &
Operations ("ATO") business unit that was announced by ATO's
President, Jeff McElfresh, on January 4, 2019. The Defendants'
January 2019 workforce reduction in ATO was part of its long-term
scheme and pattern or practice to replace older employees with
younger ones. The scheme was designed to, and did, discriminatorily
remove older employees from the Defendants' workforce, and then
intentionally deceived them into falsely believing that, in
exchange for a severance benefit, they had released their right to
sue the company for age discrimination, says the complaint.

The Defendants seek a review of the Court's Memorandum and Order
dated March 19, 2021, denying as moot their motion for court order
to lift a stay of proceedings.

The appellate case is captioned as Patrice Kantz v. AT&T Inc., et
al., Case No. 21-1620, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Third Circuit, filed on March 31, 2021. [BN]

Defendants-Appellants AT&T INC. and AT&T SERVICES INC. are
represented by:

          Kenneth Gage, Esq.
          Brian M. Hayes, Esq.
          Sara B. Tomezsko, Esq.  
          PAUL HASTINGS
          200 Park Avenue, 30th Floor
          New York, NY 10166
          Telephone: (212) 318-6046
          E-mail: kennethgage@paulhastings.com
                  brianhayes@paulhastings.com  
                  saratomezsko@paulhastings.com  

               - and -

          William J. Leahy, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON
          1601 Cherry Street
          Three Parkway, Suite 1400
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (267) 402-3012
          E-mail: wleahy@littler.com

Plaintiff-Appellee PATRICE KANTZ, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF THOSE SIMILARLY SITUATED, is represented by:

          Stephen G. Console, Esq.
          Laura C. Mattiacci, Esq.
          Daniel S. Orlow, Esq.
          Susan M. Saint-Antoine, Esq.
          CONSOLE MATTIACCI LAW
          1525 Locust Street, 9th Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 545-7676
          E-mail: console@consolelaw.com
                  mattiacci@consolelaw.com
                  orlow@consolelaw.com
                  santanto@consolelaw.com

BAD DRAGON: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in New York
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bad Dragon
Enterprises Inc. The case is styled as Ramon Jaquez, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Bad Dragon Enterprises
Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-02850 (S.D.N.Y., April 2, 2021).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

Bad Dragon Enterprises, Inc. -- https://bad-dragon.com/ -- is an
American manufacturer of fantasy-themed sex toys, primarily
targeted at members of the furry fandom.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
          MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC
          701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
          Asbury Park, NJ 07712
          Phone: (845) 367-7146
          Fax: (732) 298-6256
          Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Lee Files Class Suit in California Superior Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bank of America
Corporation, et al. The case is styled as Charlotte Lee, on behalf
of herself and all other similarly situated individuals v. Bank of
America Corporation, a Delaware Corporation doing business in
California; Bank of America National Association, a National
Association Bank doing business in California; Case No.
BCV-21-100770 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., April 6, 2021).

The case type is stated as "CV Other Employment - Civil
Unlimited."

The Bank of America Corporation -- https://www.bankofamerica.com/
-- is an American multinational investment bank and financial
services holding company headquartered in Charlotte, North
Carolina.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua David Buck, Esq.
          THIERMAN BUCK LLP
          7287 Lakeside Dr.
          Reno, NV 89511
          Phone: (775) 284-1500
          Fax: (775) 284-1506
          Email: josh@thiermanbuck.com


BEECH-NUT NUTRITION: Faces Suit Over Mislabeled Baby Food Products
------------------------------------------------------------------
ASYIA ANDREWS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BEECH-NUT NUTRITION COMPANY; GERBER PRODUCTS
COMPANY (d/b/a Nestle Nutrition, Nestle Infant Nutrition, or Nestle
Nutrition North America); HAIN CELESTIAL GROUP, INC. (d/b/a Earth's
Best Organic Baby Food), NURTURE, INC.; and SPROUT FOODS, INC.
(d/b/a Sprout Organic Foods), Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-01704
(E.D.N.Y., Mar. 29, 2021) alleges that the Defendants disregarded
the safety, health, and wellbeing of millions of babies, toddlers,
and children by knowingly selling baby food products containing
dangerous amounts of toxic heavy metals, such as inorganic arsenic,
lead, cadmium, and mercury (referred to as "'Toxic Heavy
Metals"').

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants failed
to disclose and warn in the package labeling, on the Defendants'
Websites, and on other marketing materials that the Plaintiff and
the Class were at risk of feeding their children food and beverages
with toxic or dangerous levels of Toxic Heavy Metals.

Instead, the Defendants concealed the high levels of heavy metals
contained in the Defendants' Baby Food Products and deceptively
represented that these products were safe, healthy, and appropriate
for infant or child consumption. The Defendants, thus, utterly
failed to ensure that the material representations it was making to
consumers were true, added the suit.

Beech-Nut Nutrition Corporation produces food for infants and
toddlers. The Company offers fruit cups, jarred meats and
vegetables, yogurt, cookies, graham crackers, oatmeal, puree fruit
pouches, apple juice, white grape juice, and bottled spring water.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael P. Canty, Esq.
          Carol Villegas, Esq.
          Labaton Sucharow LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 907-0700
          Facsimile: (212) 818-0477
          E-mail: mcanty@labaton.com
                  cvillegas@labaton.com


BLACKSTONE MEDICAL: Turner Files Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ackanik Vashawn Turner, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Blackstone Medical Services LLC, Case No.
8:21-cv-00813-KKM-CPT (M.D. Fla., Apr. 5, 2021) seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages and liquidated damages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked in excess of 40
hours per work week but was not compensated at the rate of time and
half his regular rate of pay.

Mr. Turner was employed by the Defendant as an inside-tele sales
person from approximately October 2020 to March 5, 2021, and was
classified as a non-exempt employee under the FLSA.

Blackstone Medical Services LLC is a service provider in the home
sleep testing industry, providing a method for providers and
patients to carry out a home sleep test to diagnose obstructive
sleep apnea.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Wolfgang M. Florin, Esq.
          16524 Pointe Village Drive, Suite 100
          Lutz, FL 33558
          Telephone: (727) 254-5255
          Fax: (727) 483-7942
          E-mail: wolfgang@fgbolaw.com


BRYANT & STRATTON: Hedges Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bryant & Stratton
College, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Donna Hedges, on behalf
of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Bryant &
Stratton College, Inc., Bryant & Stratton, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-02957 (S.D.N.Y., April 6, 2021).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

Bryant & Stratton College, Inc. -- https://www.bryantstratton.edu/
-- provides educational services. The Company offers degrees in
financial planning, securities, healthcare, insurance, information
technology, and professional development, as well as online
learning programs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 E. 18th Street, Suite Phr
          New York, NY 10003
          Phone: (212) 228-9795
          Email: michael@gottlieb.legal


BUMBLE INC: Settlement in Class Suit Fully Effective as of Jan. 18
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bumble Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 15, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the settlement in the
class action suit filed against Bumble Trading Inc., became fully
effective as of January 18, 2021

On November 13, 2018, a class action lawsuit was filed against
Bumble Trading Inc. in the Northern District of California.

There are two elements to the lawsuit: New York Dating Services Law
and California Auto-Renewal Law. The parties held a mediation on
April 2, 2020, ultimately resulting in the plaintiffs and Bumble
accepting the mediator’s settlement proposal.

The settlement received preliminary approval by the court on July
15, 2020 and final approval was granted on December 18, 2020.

The settlement became fully effective as of January 18, 2021.

The Company recorded an accrual for the loss contingency in
relation to this litigation.

Bumble Inc. develops application software. The Company offers an
online dating application that enables users to meet new people for
dating, friendship, and relationship. Bumble serves customers
worldwide. The company is based in Austin, Texas.

BUMBLE INC: Settlement in Discrimination Suit Awaits Preliminary OK
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Bumble Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 15, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the settlement in the
class action suit realted to alleged men discrimination, awaits
preliminary approval of the court.

On May 29, 2018, a plaintiff filed a class action complaint against
Bumble Trading Inc. alleging that Bumble's "women message first"
feature discriminates against men and is therefore unlawful under
California's Unruh Civil Rights Act and Cal. Bus & Prof. Code
Section 17200.

The parties held a mediation on June 23, 2020 and signed a
settlement agreement on November 20, 2020, subject to preliminary
approval by the court.

The Company recorded an accrual for the loss contingency in
relation to this litigation.

Bumble Inc. develops application software. The Company offers an
online dating application that enables users to meet new people for
dating, friendship, and relationship. Bumble serves customers
worldwide. The company is based in Austin, Texas.


CALOP BUSINESS: Denial of Arbitration Bid in Cruz Suit Affirmed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IRMA CRUZ, Plaintiff and Respondent v. CALOP BUSINESS
SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant and Appellant, Case No. B306688 (Cal.
App.), the Court of Appeals of California for the Second District,
Division Two, affirms the order denying Calop's motion to compel
arbitration.

Plaintiff and Respondent Irma Cruz was employed by Calop as a
security guard and flight inspector.  On March 25, 2019, Cruz
received a copy of Calop's updated employee handbook when she
picked up her paycheck.  Mijeong Kim, a staff member in Calop's
human resources department, tried to explain a change to the
handbook regarding dispute resolution.  Because Kim "had an
impression that Cruz did not completely understand the explanation"
provided, she asked another staff member to explain it to Cruz in
Spanish.  Following an explanation in Spanish, Cruz signed a
three-page document contained in the handbook titled, "Pre-Dispute
Resolution Agreement."  The Agreement contains arbitration
provisions.

On Nov. 15, 2019, Cruz filed a complaint in the Los Angeles County
Superior Court, on behalf of herself and a putative class
consisting of "all current and former persons employed by Calop in
California as non-exempt employees."

The complaint sets forth eight causes of action arising out of
Cruz's employment with Calop: (1) failure to pay minimum wage; (2)
failure to pay overtime wages; (3) failure to provide meal periods;
(4) failure to provide rest periods; (5) failure to furnish
accurate wage statements; (6) waiting time penalties; (7) unlawful
deductions from wages; and (8) unfair business practices. The
complaint also alleges a representative action for civil penalties
under the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA").

On March 2, 2020, Calop moved to compel arbitration of Cruz's eight
causes of action and to stay the PAGA claim.  It argued that Cruz
was required to arbitrate under the Agreement.  In opposition, Cruz
contended that the Agreement was illusory and, therefore, did not
constitute a valid agreement to arbitrate.  In the alternative, she
argued that the Agreement was unenforceable because it was
unconscionable.

On July 1, 2020, the trial court denied Calop's motion to compel
arbitration.  As an initial matter, the trial court found that
Calop had met its burden of proving by a preponderance of the
evidence that a valid arbitration agreement existed between it and
Cruz. Calop had attached a copy of the Agreement, with Cruz's
signature, to its motion.  The trial court then proceeded to find
the Agreement unconscionable. By the Agreement's plain terms, "Cruz
had no choice but to sign it." This presented some degree of
procedural unconscionability.  The Agreement was also substantively
unconscionable, because it was "one-sided in Calop's favor."
Because there was no single provision that the court could strike
in order to remove the unconscionability from the Agreement, the
trial court concluded that the entire Agreement was unenforceable.

Calop filed a timely notice of appeal from the trial court's order
denying the motion to compel arbitration.

First, the Court of Appeals disagrees with Calop's contention that
Cruz has not proved procedural unconscionability because she did
not submit a declaration regarding the circumstances under which
she signed the Agreement.  The oppressive nature of the Agreement
is apparent from its format and the circumstances under which it
was signed as evidenced by the declarations submitted by Calop.
Cruz is not required to present evidence that she attempted to
negotiate the terms of the Agreement and was rebuffed.  Such
evidence might demonstrate an even greater degree of procedural
unconscionability, but the Court of Appeals is satisfied that Cruz
has established the presence of such unconscionability.

Next, the Court of Appeals holds that the Agreement's provision
regarding the mandatory use of Calop's internal grievance
procedures creates a high degree of substantive unconscionability.
It finds that the Agreement contains no provision restricting
Calop's potential claims against Cruz.  It is also fundamentally
unfair to require Cruz to exhaust all the available remedies
contained in Calop's employee handbook when Calop has absolute
control over those procedures.  In short, Calop has the unilateral
power to impede Cruz's access to neutral forms of dispute
resolution, while gaining a "free peek" at her case in the
process.

In sum, the Court of Appeals opines that the combined effect of the
procedural unconscionability and substantive unconscionability
discussed renders the Agreement, in its totality, "unreasonably
one-sided."  Having satisfied "the overall test of
unconscionability," it concludes that Calop's motion to compel
arbitration was properly denied.

Accordingly, the order denying the motion to compel arbitration is
affirmed.  Cruz is entitled to her costs on appeal.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 30, 2021 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/ned75mjc from Leagle.com.


CAMPBELL SOUP: Baby Foods Contain Toxic Heavy Metals, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
CINDY PEREIRA, on behalf of herself and a class of others similarly
situated v. CAMPBELL SOUP COMPANY, AND PLUM, PBC, Case No.
5:21-cv-01767 (N.D. Calif., March 12, 2021) is a consumer class
action brought  individually by Plaintiff and on behalf of all
persons all of whom purchased one or more baby foods manufactured
by the Defendants that contain toxic heavy metals.

Campbell purchased Plum in 2013 for $249 million. At the time,
Campbell touted Plum as the "No. 2 brand of organic baby food in
the United States." Plum represents its food philosophy as "Little
ones deserve the very best food from the very first bite." Plum
prides itself for being on "Team Parent," noting on its website and
advertisements, "Parenting is hard. That's why Plum is easy."

The Defendants do not list heavy metals as an ingredient on the
Products' label nor do they warn of the potential presence of heavy
metals in their Products. Unbeknownst to the Plaintiff and members
of the proposed Class, and contrary to the representations on the
Products' label, the Products contain toxic heavy metals, which, if
disclosed to Plaintiff and members of the proposed Class prior to
purchase, would have caused the Plaintiff and members of the
proposed Class not to purchase or consume the Products, the suit
says.

As a result, the Products' labeling is allegedly deceptive and
misleading. The Plaintiff and the members of the proposed Class
bring claims for consumer fraud and seek damages, injunctive and
declaratory 13 relief, interest, costs, and attorneys' fees.

Plaintiff Pereira purchased many the Products from Target
throughout January 2021, including Plum Organics Apple & Carrot
Baby Food Pouch, Plum Organics Pear Spinach & Pea Baby Food Pouch,
Plum Organics Pear & Mango Baby Food Pouch, Plum Organics Stage 2
Peach Banana & Apricot Baby Food Pouch and Plum Organics Pear
Purple Carrot & Blueberry Baby Food Pouches.

The Defendants manufacture, distribute, promote, offer for sale,
and sell the Products, both in the past and currently. The
Defendants have advertised and continue to advertise the Products
through television commercials, print advertisements, point-of-sale
displays, product packaging, Internet advertisements, and other
promotional materials.

An investigation by the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee
on Economic and Consumer Policy revealed that baby foods
manufactured by Defendants are "tainted with significant levels of
toxic heavy metals, including arsenic, lead, cadmium, and mercury."


Exposure to heavy metals causes permanent decreases in IQ,
diminished future economic productivity, and increased risk of
future criminal and antisocial behavior in children. Toxic heavy
metals endanger infant neurological development and long-term brain
function. Lead and arsenic are heavy metals known to cause a wide
spectrum of adverse outcomes in pregnancy such as abortions,
retarded growth at the intrauterine cavity, skeletal deformities,
malformations and retarded development especially of the nervous
system.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gayle M. Blatt, Esq.
          P. Camille Guerra, Esq.
          CASEY GERRY SCHENK
          FRANCAVILLA BLATT & PENFIELD, LLP
          110 Laurel Street
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 238-1811
          Facsimile: (619) 544-9232
          E-mail: gmb@cglaw.com
                  camille@cglaw.com

CAPITAL ONE: Faces Fernandez $9.9 MM Suit in C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Capital One, N.A. The
case is captioned as Krystal Fernandez, et al. v. Capital One,
N.A., Case No. 2:21-cv-02253-JVS-MRW (C.D. Cal., March 12, 2020).

The suit involves diversity-contract dispute demanding $9.9 million
in damages. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge James V. Selna.

Capital One, National Association operates as a bank. The Bank
offers financial products and services. Capital One is doing
business as: Capital One Auto Finance.[BN]

The Plaintiffs Krystal Fernandez and Brett Beckeron behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated are represented by:

          Jason M. Frank, Esq.
          Andrew D. Stolper, Esq.
          Scott Howard Sims, Esq.
          FRANK SIMS AND STOLPER LLP
          19800 MacArthur Boulevard Suite 855
          Irvine, CA 92612
          Telephone: (949) 201-2400
          Facsimile: (949) 201-2405
          E-mail: jfrank@lawfss.com
                  astolper@lawfss.com
                  ssims@lawfss.com

               - and -

          Franklin D. Azar, Esq.
          FRANKLIN D AZAR AND ASSOCIATES PC
          14426 East Evans Avenue
          Aurora, CO 80014
          Telephone: (303) 757-3300
          Facsimile: (720) 213-5131
          E-mail: azarf@fdazar.com

CASEY'S GENERAL: Class in McColley Suit Conditionally Certified
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOY McCOLLEY, Plaintiff v. CASEY'S GENERAL STORES,
INC., Defendant, Cause No. 2:18-CV-72 DRL-JEM (N.D. Ind.), Judge
Damon R. Leichty of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Indiana, Hammond Division, grants the Plaintiff's
motion for conditional certification but denies her motion for
equitable tolling as premature.

Ms. McColley alleges that Casey's violated the Fair Labor Standards
Act by failing to pay overtime wages for her work in excess of 40
hours per week.  The parties have completed discovery on the issue
of class certification.

Casey's, and its wholly-owned subsidiaries, Casey's Marketing Co.
and Casey's Retail Co., operate over 2,000 convenience stores
across the United States, including the Casey's store in which Ms.
McColley worked in Griffith, Indiana.  Ms. McColley was a store
manager at Casey's from approximately February 2014 to January
2017.  As a store manager, she was classified as exempt from FLSA's
overtime provision.  She regularly worked over 40 hours per
workweek.

The nature of a store manager's duties ranged from manual,
"associate-type" duties like customer service, preparing food,
taking orders, stocking shelves, and cleaning the store, to more
managerial duties including gas price setting, screening
candidates, training associates, firing associates, enforcing store
policies, and preparing work schedules.

Ms. McColley claims that, despite her title of manager, she and the
other potential collective action members performed primarily
manual, "associate-type" duties in excess of 40 hours a workweek,
and that these duties did not involve the exercise of discretion or
independent judgment "regarding matters of significance."  Ms.
McColley also claims these manual duties occupied a majority of her
work, for which she was not paid overtime, and were at the
direction and with the knowledge of Casey's, which intentionally
underfunded the store's payroll to avoid hiring more non-exempt
associates eligible for overtime pay.

From Feb. 16, 2015 to today, Ms. McColley claims that Casey's
practice of failing to pay overtime for hours worked by managers,
who are classified as exempt employees, for completing primarily
non-managerial duties constitutes a knowing and willful violation
of FLSA.  She accordingly requests the case be conditionally
certified under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) and the statute of
limitations to be tolled for potential class members.

Judge Leichty held oral argument on March 9, 2021.

Ms. McColley proposes conditionally certifying one collective
action under FLSA: "All store managers who worked for Casey's
throughout the United States at any time on or after Feb. 16,
2015."

To support the conclusion that these potential Plaintiffs are
similarly situated, Ms. McColley submitted declarations of 10
former store managers; deposition testimony from Casey's corporate
representatives, Mr. Robert Ford (Vice President of Store
Operations) and Ms. Cindi Summers (Senior Vice President of Human
Resources); the indices from Casey's Work Station, Food Service,
Forms, and Building the Team manuals; and human resource guides and
articles describing policies related to Casey's compensation,
planograms, promotions, and prices.

Judge Leichty opines that these declarations and exhibits contain
sufficient evidence of substantial similarity among the potential
class members.  Ms. McColley has provided ample evidence, and not
just scant assertions, of the nature of the associate-type work
performed by store managers and their hours in ten declarations.
Further, she presented a corporate representative's own statements
about the nature of the duties of a store manager, which include
both managerial and associate-type work, and that the duties were
the same across all stores.  This evidence constitutes substantial
proof -- indeed, enough to meet a "modest" showing and even to make
the finding of conditional certification by a preponderance at this
stage, appreciating that more discovery will come.

Therefore, the Judge concludes that Ms. McColley has presented
facts sufficient to demonstrate that she and the potential
Plaintiffs together were victims of a common policy or plan that
violated the law.  This is true whether the Court assesses the
evidence presented under the amorphous "enough" standard urged by
Ms. McColley, the roughly sketched "modest" or "modest plus"
standards, or indeed the preponderance standard used in Rule 23
proceedings.  Accordingly, the Judge conditionally certifies the
following class: "All current and former Casey's store managers
throughout the United States who are or were classified as exempt
store managers during the Collective Action Period."

Ms. McColley asks the Court to equitably toll the statute of
limitations on the potential Plaintiffs' claims from Nov. 16, 2018
(the date that Ms. McColley filed her motion for notice and
conditional certification) to the date that the issue of
conditional certification and notice are resolved.  Casey's
responds by contesting standing and arguing that such an
extraordinary remedy is inappropriate and unwarranted.

Judge Leichty appreciates that the case has lingered before being
reassigned to him, but that alone isn't a basis to equitably toll
the statute of limitations.  He says equitable tolling may well be
appropriate later, but he won't make that determination now,
without knowing whether a particular plaintiff or group of
plaintiffs knew about this action but forewent the opportunity to
join, whether the class notice served as the first word of the
opportunity to opt in, or a great many other facts that this record
lacks.  Equitably tolling the statute of limitations for a swath of
plaintiffs whose circumstances are unknown could potentially
benefit plaintiffs who have sat on their hands while their claims
have tolled and who don't deserve equity.  In short, ruling now
would be premature.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Leichty grants Ms. McColley's
motion for conditional certification, denies as premature Ms.
McColley's motion for equitable tolling, and denies Ms. McColley's
motion to strike Casey's notice of supplemental authority because
the legal authority was already known to the Court.

Given the time that has passed since the motion was filed and the
case reassigned to him, the Judge ordered that the parties meet and
confer on April 10, 2021, on a proposed form of notice.  He orders
the Plaintiff to file the proposed notice by April 14, with any
objections due from the defense by April 21, not to exceed three
pages.  He will address any objections promptly, likely at a
telephonic hearing, and then order issuance of the notice.  The
Judge further orders the parties to confer concerning a timeline,
if needed, for the Defendant to produce to the Plaintiff the class
member names, dates of employment, and known addresses.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 31, 2021 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yhay64ys from Leagle.com.


CDM FEDERAL: Faces Batiste Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
HORACE BATISTE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CDM FEDERAL PROGRAMS CORPORATION and CDM
SMITH INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:21-cv-00953 (D.P.R., March 23,
2021) brings this complaint against the Defendant and its parent
company to recover regular overtime wages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Puerto Rico Wage Payment Statute.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants from on or about February
2020 through on or about March 2020 in furtherance of the
Defendants' natural disaster relief services provided throughout
Puerto Rico.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was classified by the
Defendants as a W-2 employee and paid him on an hourly basis. The
Plaintiff claims that despite routinely working 5 to 7 shifts per
week at a minimum of 10-hour daily shift, the Defendant did not pay
him any additional pay for overtime hours that he worked at the
rate of one and one-half times his regular rate of pay. Allegedly,
the Defendants paid him a straight time at his hourly rate for each
accepted work hour he recorded in the company's timekeeping system,
including his overtime hours.

The Plaintiff seeks to recover actual and statutory damages from
the Defendants for himself and other similarly situated employees,
who have been deprived of their overtime pay, as well as unpaid
overtime wages, liquidated damages, reimbursement for all withheld
deductions, and penalties, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs,
and other relief as the Court may deem appropriate and just.

The Corporate Defendants are part of an organization that secured
contracts with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to
provide services related to natural disaster recovery in Puerto
Rico. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq.
          Melinda Arbuckle, Esq.
          SHELLIST LAZARS SLOBIN LLP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515
          Houston, TX 77046
          Tel: (713) 621-2277
          Fax: (713) 621-0993
          E-mail: rprieto@eeoc.net
                  marbuckle@eeoc.net

                - and –

          Enrique J. Mendoza Mendez, Esq.
          MENDOZA LAW OFFICES
          P.O. Box 9282
          San Juan, PR 00908-0282
          Tel: (787) 722-5522; 5530; 5540
          Fax: (787) 723-7057
          E-mail: mendozalo@yahoo.com


CENTRAL PORTFOLIO: Dhas Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MADHUKAR DHAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CENTRAL PORTFOLIO CONTROL, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 2:21-cv-01459 (E.D. Pa., Mar. 29, 2021) seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Central Portfolio Control Inc. was founded in 1998. The company's
line of business includes collection and adjustment services on
claims and other insurance related issues. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert P. Cocco, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT P. COCCO, P.C.
          1500 Walnut Street, Suite 900
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 351-0200
          Facsimile: (215) 827-5403


CITIZENS INSURANCE: Denies Coverage Due to COVID Losses, Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
WALKER & KRAUS, D.D.S., P.L.L.C., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. CITIZENS INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA,
Case No. 2:21-cv-00345 (W.D. Wash., March 12, 2021) is filed to
ensure that the Plaintiff and other similarly-situated
policyholders receive the insurance benefits to which they are
entitled and for which they paid.

The Defendant issued one or more "all-risk" insurance policies to
Plaintiff, which includes Property, Business Income Cove age and
related endorsements, insuring the Plaintiff's property and
business practice and other coverages.

The Plaintiff's business property includes property owned and/or
leased by Plaintiff and used for general business purposes for the
specific purpose of dentistry and other related business
activities.

According to the complaint, the Defendant denied Plaintiff's claim
for insurance benefits by letter dated May 26, 2020. The Plaintiff
contends that the Defendant did not make a reasonable investigation
of Plaintiffs' claims. The Defendant intends to deny or has denied
Plaintiff's claim for coverage and has or will continue to deny
coverage for other similarly situated policyholders. Plaintiff has
paid its insurance premiums.

On January 2020, the United States of America saw its first cases
of persons infected by COVID-19, which has been designated a
worldwide pandemic. On March 30, 2020, Governor Inslee issued Order
Number 20-03-30-01 affecting persons and residents within the State
of Washington, which includes a "Stay-at-Home Order" requiring all
persons living in Washington to stay in their homes or places of
residence except under certain specified circumstances.

Loss caused by COVID-19 and/or Governor Inslee's orders and
proclamations rendered the Plaintiff’s property unusable for its
intended and insured purpose. The Plaintiff's property sustained
direct physical loss and/or direct physical property damage related
to COVID-19 and/or the proclamations and orders.

The Plaintiff's property will continue to sustain direct physical
loss or damage covered by the Defendant's policy or policies,
including but not limited to Business Income Coverage, Extra
Expense Coverage, Extended Business Income Coverage and Civil
Authority Coverage.

Plaintiff Walker operates a dentistry practice located at 2949
Griffin Ave., Enumclaw, Washington.

Citizens Insurance is an insurance carrier incorporated and
domiciled in the State of Michigan, with its principal place of
business located in Howell, Michigan. The Defendant is an insurer
among the group of insurers within The Hanover Insurance Group,
Inc.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Amy Williams-Derry, Esq.
          Lynn L. Sarko, Esq.
          Ian S. Birk, Esq.
          Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq.
          Irene M. Hecht, Esq.
          Karin B. Swope, Esq.
          Nathan Nanfelt, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
          1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-1900
          Facsimile: (206) 623-3384
          E-mail: awilliams-derry@kellerrohrback.com
                  lsarko@kellerrohrback.com
                  ibirk@kellerrohrback.com
                  gcappio@kellerrohrback.com
                  ihecht@kellerrohrback.com
                  kswope@kellerrohrback.com
                  nnanfelt@kellerrohrback.com

CJ'S FIRST WOK: King Files FCRA Suit in North District of Ohio
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CJ's First Wok, Inc.
The case is styled as Katia King, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. CJ's First Wok, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-00744 (N.D. Ohio, April 6, 2021).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.

CJ's First Wok, Inc. -- http://www.firstwokcleveland.com/-- is a
no-frills restaurant featuring classic Chinese dishes & lunch deals
amid a laid-back atmosphere.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott D. Perlmuter, Esq.
          TITTLE & PERLMUTER
          4106 Bridge Ave.
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Phone: (216) 308-1522
          Email: scott@tittlelawfirm.com


CLIENT SERVICES: Preisler Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Client Services,
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Amir Preisler, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Client Services,
Inc., John Does 1-25, Case No. 0:21-cv-60754-AHS (S.D. Fla., April
6, 2021).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

Client Services, Inc. -- https://www.clientservices.com/ -- offers
collection services. The Company provides accounts receivable
management, debt collection services, and customer care
solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin E. Zeig, Esq.
          ZEIG LAW FIRM, LLC
          3475 Sheridan Street, Suite 310
          Hollywood, FL 33024
          Phone and Fax: (754) 217-3084
          Email: justin@zeiglawfirm.com


COCA-COLA CONSOLIDATED: Bid to Dismiss Jones ERISA Suit Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHEYENE JONES AND SARA J. GAST, Individually and as
representatives Of a class of similarly situated persons, on Behalf
of the COCA-COLA CONSOLIDATED, INC. 401(K) PLAN, Plaintiff v.
COCA-COLA CONSOLIDATED, INC., THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF COCA COLA
CONSOLIDATED, INC., THE CORPORATE BENEFITS COMMITTEE OF COCA COLA
CONSOLIDATED, INC.; and DOES No. 1-20, Whose Names Are Currently
Unkown, Defendants, Docket No. 3:20-cv-00654-FDW-DSC (W.D.N.C.),
Judge Frank D. Whitney of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, Charlotte Division, denies the
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint.

The case arrived before the Court as a class action suit alleging
breach of fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act.  The Named Plaintiffs are former employees of
Coca-Cola.  Jones is a current participant in the Coca-Cola
Consolidated, Inc. 401(k) Plan, while Gast is a former participant.
The Plan is a defined contribution plan and is a qualified
tax-deferred vehicle under Section 401 of the Internal Revenue
Code, 26 U.S.C. Sections 401(a) and (k).  As of Dec. 31, 2019, the
Plan had 10,170 participants with account balances and assets
totaling $784 million.

During the times relevant to the Complaint, the Plan ran similar to
most other 401(k) plans.  Participants directed the investment of
their contributions into various options offered by the Plan, such
as mutual funds, collective investment trusts, and Coca-Cola
Company common stock.  The majority of administrative expenses
incurred by the Plan were paid by the participants via a reduction
in their investment income.  The Defendants are alleged fiduciaries
of the Plan and were responsible for crafting the Plan lineup of
investment options.  Herein lies the majority of the Plaintiffs'
Complaint – the Defendants breached their fiduciary
responsibilities by mismanaging the Plan lineup.

The bulk of the Plaintiffs' Complaint concerns the Fidelity Freedom
Funds ("Active Suite").  The Plan has offered the Active Suite
since 2009.  The Active Suite is a suite of target date funds
designed to offer an "all-in-one" retirement solution by having
investment managers shift the portfolio of underlying funds to
become more conservative as the target retirement date approaches.
It invests predominantly in actively-managed Fidelity mutual funds.
Fidelity also offers a similarly functioning, target date fund
suite called Fidelity Freedom Index Funds ("Index Suite").

The main difference between the Active Suite and the Index Suite is
their underlying investments.  The Active Suite invests in
actively-managed Fidelity mutual funds.  The Index Suite invests in
Fidelity funds that track market indices.

The Plaintiffs set forth three primary issues with the Defendants'
choice to offer the Active Suite instead of the Index Suite.
First, they allege the Active Suite is too "high-risk" to be
suitable for the plan participants.  Second, they allege the Active
Suite has higher fees than the Index Suite.  Third, the Plaintiffs
allege that other plan fiduciaries and investors lost faith in the
Active Suite.  They have similar issues with the Carillon Eagle
Small Cap Growth Fund Class R5 and the T. Rowe Price Mid-Cap Value
Fund.

Separate from the Plan's lineup offerings and the investment fees
charged by the funds, the Plaintiffs allege the record-keeping and
administrative costs of the Plan were excessive.  The Plan paid
Fidelity $59 per participant for record-keeping services alone, but
given the size of the Plan, the Plaintiffs allege that Fidelity's
services were worth $14-$21 per participant.  Finally, the
Plaintiffs also allege the overall expense ratio of the entire menu
of investment options was negligently expensive because total plan
costs for participants were double that of similarly situated
plans.

The Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on Nov. 24, 2020 against the
named Defendants.  Their Complaint contains three counts: (1)
breach of fiduciary duty; (2) failure to monitor fiduciaries and
co-fiduciary breaches; and (3) liability for knowing breach of
trust.

On Jan. 14, 2020, Defendants Coca-Cola Consolidated, Inc., the
Board of Directors of Coca-Cola Consolidated, Inc., and the
Corporate Benefits Committee of Coca-Cola Consolidated, Inc. filed
a motion to dismiss.

Prior to addressing the Plaintiffs' claims, the Court first
determines whether they have standing to bring the case.

A. Standing

In their Motion to Dismiss, the Defendants argue both named
Plaintiffs lack standing due to a lack of injury-in-fact.

Judge Whitney holds that the Plaintiffs allege injury to their
individual 401(k) accounts in the form of excessive record-keeping
and administrative costs as well as an expensive overall investment
menu endured by each Plan participant.  These injuries are alleged
to be the result of the Defendants' breach of fiduciary duty,
failure to monitor, and breach of trust.  Therefore, "if the
Plaintiffs' allegations are true, they suffered injury in that
their retirement accounts are worth less they would have been
absent the breachs."  The Judge, accordingly, finds that the
Plaintiffs have Article III standing to assert their claims as they
have properly alleged they suffered an injury-in-fact.

B. Count I: Breach of Fiduciary Duty

In order to allege a breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA, the
Plaintiffs must show that: (1) the Plan is governed by ERISA; (2)
Defendants were fiduciaries of the Plan; and (3) the Defendants
breached their duties of prudence and/or loyalty under ERISA,
resulting in losses to the participants of the Plan.  The first two
elements to allege a breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA are met.
It is undisputed at this point that the Plan is governed by ERISA
and the Plaintiffs have alleged that each Defendant is a fiduciary
with supporting factual allegations.  All that remains for the
Court to decide is whether the Plaintiffs sufficiently alleged the
third requirement to state a claim for breach of fiduciary duty
under ERISA: Whether the Defendants breached their duties of
prudence and/or loyalty under ERISA, resulting in losses to the
participants of the Plan.

The Plaintiffs allege the Defendants breached their fiduciary
duties in three distinct ways, all of which have the potential to
independently satisfy the third element of their claim: (1) the
overall investment menu contained costs that were imprudent, (2)
the Plan's record-keeping and administrative fees were imprudent,
and (3) specific funds in the Plan lineup were imprudent.

Judge Whitney finds the Plaintiffs' factual allegations regarding
the Defendants' alleged failure to utilize cheaper investments that
offer identical underlying investments sufficiently states a claim
for breach of fiduciary duty.  Because the Plaintiffs' first
allegation in support of Count I is sufficient to state a claim for
relief, the Judge accordingly declines to address the Defendants'
remaining arguments and denies their Motion to Dismiss Count I.

C. Count II: Failure to Monitor

The Plaintiffs allege Defendant Coca-Cola failed to adequately
monitor the Administrative Committee.  The Defendants first argue
this claim fails because a failure-to-monitor claim is not an
independent ground for relief and depends upon an underlying breach
of fiduciary duty claim.  However, because Judge Whitney has
already established that the Plaintiffs have stated a claim for
breach of fiduciary duty, this argument fails.

Second, the Defendants argue the Plaintiffs have not alleged facts
sufficient to make a threshold showing that the monitoring
fiduciary failed to "review the performance of its appointees at
reasonable intervals in such manner as may be reasonably expected
to ensure compliance with the terms of the plan and statutory
standards."  However, the Plaintiffs alleged just that, and at this
stage in the litigation "an analysis of the precise contours of the
Defendants' duty to monitor is premature."  As a result, the
Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged a claim for failure to
monitor, and the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is denied with
regard to Count II.

D. Count III: Knowing Breach of Trust

The Fourth Circuit has not yet formally recognized a claim for
knowing breach of trust.  However, it has stated that if such a
cause of action were to exist, "an essential element of such a
claim would be the defendant's knowing participation in a breach by
a fiduciary."

In In re MedStar ERISA Litig., CA No. RDB-20-1984, 2021 WL 391701
at *16-17 (D. Md. Feb. 4, 2021), a knowing breach of trust claim
survived a motion to dismiss where there were allegations that the
defendants were in a position to know of the alleged breaches of
fiduciary duty.  The facts in the case are similar to those in
MedStar in that the Plaintiffs allege the Defendants' roles and
relationships would place them in a position to know of nonfeasance
or malfeasance of the others.

Therefore, Judge Whitney finds that, just as in MedStar, "given the
allegations with respect to the roles and relationships of the
Defendants identified in the Complaint, dismissing their claim
under Count III at this time would be premature."  As a result, the
Plaintiffs have sufficiently stated a claim for a knowing breach of
trust and the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is denied with regard
to Count III.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Whitney denies that Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 31, 2021 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/j76pbevh from Leagle.com.


COFFEE HOLDING: Brodsky and Diamond Putative Class Suit Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
Coffee Holding Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 17, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended January 31, 2021, that the company continues
to defend a putative class action suit initiated by Eileen Brodsky
and Rhonda Diamond.

The Company was named as a defendant in a putative class action
lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois on or about December 21, 2020.

The plaintiffs, Brodsky and Diamond, purporting to represent a
class of individuals who purchased coffee products at Aldi, Inc., a
supermarket chain, generally allege that Aldi sold private label
coffee products manufactured by us and by Pan American Coffee Co.,
LLC, which falsely described the number of cups of coffee that
could be made from the amount of product purchased.

Aldi and Pan American are also named as defendants in the action.

The complaint asserts a variety of claims under New York and
California consumer protection laws, and seeks unspecified monetary
damages, including disgorgement and restitution, as well as other
forms of relief including class certification, declaratory and
injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, and interest.

The Company believes the allegations in the complaint are wholly
without merit and that the claims asserted are legally deficient,
and the company intends to vigorously defend the action.

Coffee Holding Co., Inc. operates as a coffee roaster and dealer.
The Company focuses on roasting, blending, packaging, and
distributing coffee for sale under private labels and their own
brands for companies throughout the United States and Canada.
Coffee Holding also sells unprocessed green coffee to specialty
gourmet roasters. The company is based in Staten Island, New York.


COFFEE HOLDING: Cohen Putative Class Suit Underway
--------------------------------------------------
Coffee Holding Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 17, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended January 31, 2021, that the company's
customer continues to defend a putative class action suit initiated
by David Cohen, of which the company agreed to indemnify.

A significant customer of the Company was named as a defendant in a
putative class action lawsuit filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts on or about February 2,
2021, concerning the labeling on private label coffee productions
we sold to the customer.

The plaintiff, David Cohen, purporting to represent a class of
individuals who purchased coffee products from the company's
customer, generally allege that the customer sold private label
coffee products manufactured by the Company which falsely described
the number of cups of coffee that could be made from the amount of
product purchased.

The Company is not named as a defendant in the action, but has
agreed to indemnify the customer for the costs and expenses
incurred in defending the lawsuit and for any liability the
customer may suffer as a result.

The complaint asserts a variety of claims under Massachusetts
consumer protection laws, and seeks unspecified monetary damages as
well as other forms of relief including class certification,
declaratory and injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, and interest.

The Company believes the allegations in the complaint are wholly
without merit and that the claims asserted are legally deficient,
and intends to vigorously support the customer in defending the
action.

Coffee Holding Co., Inc. operates as a coffee roaster and dealer.
The Company focuses on roasting, blending, packaging, and
distributing coffee for sale under private labels and their own
brands for companies throughout the United States and Canada.
Coffee Holding also sells unprocessed green coffee to specialty
gourmet roasters. The company is based in Staten Island, New York.


CORELLE BRANDS: Garcia Suit Removed to N.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Caroline Garcia, Michael Sporn, individually and
on behalf of others similarly situated v. Corelle Brands LLC doing
business as: Instant Brands Inc., Case No. CGC-21-589808, was
removed from the Superior Court State of San Francisco to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California on April 7,
2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:21-cv-02518-DMR to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Corelle Brands, LLC -- https://corporate.instantbrands.com/ -- is a
world leader in the kitchenware industry.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC
          245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Phone: (800) 400-6808
          Fax: (800) 520-5523
          Email: ak@kazlg.com

               - and -

          Adib Hashemi Assassi, Esq.
          BLACK OAK LAW FIRM
          1100 W. Town and Country Road, Suite 1250
          Orange, CA 92868
          Phone: (949) 688-6009
          Email: adib@blackoaklaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Amanda Carolyne Schwartz, Esq.
          LEWIS LLEWELLYN LLP
          601 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Phone: (415) 800-0590
          Fax: (415) 390-2127
          Email: aschwartz@lewisllewellyn.com

               - and -

          Anthony John Anscombe
          STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP
          One Market Plaza
          Spear Tower, Suite 3900
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Phone: (415) 365-6700
          Fax: (415) 365-6699
          Email: aanscombe@steptoe.com


CPUTOPIA LLC: Young Files ADA Suit in Southern District of New York
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CPUtopia, LLC. The
case is styled as Lawrence Young, on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated v. CPUtopia, LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-02866 (S.D.N.Y., April 3, 2021).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

CPUtopia -- https://www.cputopia.com/ -- specializes in computer
repair.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Phone: (212) 228-9795
          Email: nyjg@aol.com
                 michael@gottlieb.legal


CRYSTAL DELIGHTS: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Crystal Delights LLC.
The case is styled as Ramon Jaquez, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Crystal Delights LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-02920 (S.D.N.Y., April 6, 2021).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

Crystal Delights -- https://crystaldelights.com/ -- is a diverse
and successful line of hand-crafted, glass pleasure products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
          MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC
          701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
          Asbury Park, NJ 07712
          Phone: (845) 367-7146
          Fax: (732) 298-6256
          Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com


CVS PHARMACY: Petition for Writ of Certiorari Filed in Doe Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants CVS Pharmacy, Inc., et al., filed with the Supreme Court
of United States a petition for a writ of certiorari in the matter
styled CVS PHARMACY, INC., CAREMARK, L.L.C., CAREMARK CALIFORNIA
SPECIALTY PHARMACY, L.L.C., PETITIONERS v. JOHN DOE, ONE, JOHN DOE,
TWO, JOHN DOE, THREE, JOHN DOE, FOUR, JOHN DOE, FIVE, ON BEHALF OF
THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, RESPONDENTS, Case No.
20-1374.

Response is due on April 30, 2021.

Petitioners CVS Pharmacy, Inc., et al., seek a review of the
judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit in the case titled John Doe, et al. v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 19-15074. The Petitioners filed a petition for
rehearing or rehearing en banc, which the Ninth Circuit denied.

The questions presented are: 1. Whether section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act, and by extension the Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act, provides a disparate-impact cause of action
for plaintiffs alleging disability discrimination. 2. If section
504 and the ACA create disparate-impact claims, whether such claims
extend to the facially neutral terms and conditions of health
insurance plans.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs
bring the putative class action alleging that they have been
discriminatorily denied benefits under their employer-offered
prescription drug benefit plans. The complaint names two sets of
Defendants: CVS Pharmacy, Inc., Caremark, LLC., and Caremark
California Specialty Pharmacy, LLC ("CVS"), and Amtrak, Lowe's
Companies, and Time Warner, Inc. ("Employer Defendants").

CVS contracted with the Employer Defendants to provide prescription
drug benefits to the Plaintiffs.  The Plaintiffs allege that their
benefit plans allow them to obtain their HIV/AIDS medications at
favorable "in-network" prices only via mail or from a CVS pharmacy.
Compared to the non-CVS "community pharmacies" from which the
Plaintiffs were previously able to obtain their medications, the
mail order and CVS Pharmacy pickup options do not offer the same
level of privacy, convenience, reliability, and service.

The Plaintiffs bring eight causes of action: (1) violation of the
anti-discrimination provision of the Affordable Care Act ("ACA");
(2) violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act
("ADA"); (3) violation of the California Unruh Civil Rights Act;
(4) violation of the California Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"); (5)
claim for benefits due under plans governed by the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"); (6) claim for breach of
fiduciary duties under ERISA; (7) failure to provide full and fair
review under ERISA; and (8) declaratory relief. The Counts 1-4 are
against CVS only. The Counts 5-8 are against all the Defendants.
[BN]

Defendants-Petitioners CVS PHARMACY, INC.; CAREMARK, L.L.C.;
CAREMARK CALIFORNIA SPECIALTY PHARMACY, L.L.C. are represented by:

          Lisa Schiavo Blatt, Esq.
          Enu A. Mainigi, Esq.
          Craig D. Singer, Esq.
          Sarah M. Harris, Esq.
          Sarah Lochner O'Connor, Esq.
          Katherine Moran Meeks, Esq.
          WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
          725 12th Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 434-5000
          E-mail: lblatt@wc.com

CYBERGUYS INC: Young Files ADA Suit in New York
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cyberguys, Inc. The
case is styled as Lawrence Young, on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Cyberguys, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-02868 (S.D.N.Y., April 3, 2021).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

Cyberguys, Inc. -- http://www.cyberguys.com/-- is a catalog and
online retailer of hard to find and innovative computer
accessories, electronics, and workplace accessories.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Phone: (212) 228-9795
          Email: michael@gottlieb.legal


DEROSSI MAC: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage Under FLSA & NYLL, Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
RUBEN MENDEZ, Individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. RAVI DEROSSI, Individually AND DEROSSI MAC LLC D/B/A
LADYBIRD, Case No. 1:21-cv-02235 (S.D.N.Y., March 15, 2021) seeks
the recovery of unpaid wages and related damages for unpaid minimum
wage and tip misappropriation under the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff, a resident of New York State, was employed as a
runner/busser from July 2018 until March 2019.

Defendant Ladybird is a New York Corporation and is a restaurant
located at 111 East 7th St, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Darren P.B. Rumack, Esq.
          THE KLEIN LAW GROUP
          39 Broadway Suite 1530
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 344-9022
          Facsimile: (212) 344-0301

DICKEY'S BARBEQUE: Stroman Suit Transferred to Texas
----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Robert Stroman, Veronica Snyder, Lashawn Parker,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Dickey's Barbeque Restaurants Inc., Case No. 2:20-cv-11561, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Texas on April 2, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:21-cv-00769-G to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Torts/Pers Inj: Other Personal
Injury.

Dickey's Barbecue -- https://www.dickeys.com/ -- is the world's
largest and fastest-growing barbecue franchise was founded in 1941
by Travis Dickey.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Adam Brett Wolf, Esq.
          Tracey Berger Cowan, Esq.
          PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE AND CONWAY APLC
          5042 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 304
          Los Angeles, CA 90036
          Phone: (415) 766-3545
          Fax: (415) 402-0058
          Email: awolf@peifferwolf.com
                 tcowan@peifferwolf.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Ian Ballon, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP
          1840 Century Park East, Suite 1900
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: (310) 586-6575
          Email: Ballon@gtlaw.com


DIGITAL RISK: Johnson et al. Seek Loan Processors' Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case, LISA JOHNSON, KENNEY JEAN-GILLES, and all others
similarly situated pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b), Plaintiffs
v. DIGITAL RISK, LLC, a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No.
9:21-cv-80606-DMM (S.D. Fla., March 26, 2021) arises from the
Defendant's alleged unlawful payroll practices in violation the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs worked as mortgage loan processors for the
Defendant. Plaintiff Johnson was employed from November 21, 2019
until approximately September 20, 2020, while Plaintiff Jean-Gilles
was from November 11, 2019 until approximately March 9, 2020.

As stated in the complaint, the Plaintiffs and other similarly
situated loan processors were given minimum workloads that must be
completed on a daily basis or otherwise they could be terminated.
Allegedly, the Defendant's productivity requirements are so
extensive that they cannot be completed/achieved within a 40-hour
workweek. However, the Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated
loan processors were prohibited from being paid overtime for hours
they worked over 40 in any given workweek, although the Defendant
is aware that they have been working overtime to complete their
daily workloads.

The Plaintiffs assert that in the beginning of their employment
with the Defendant, they were paid for all hours they worked in
excess 40 each workweek, but it suddenly stopped.

The Plaintiffs bring this complaint as a collective action to
recover from the Defendant all unpaid overtime owed to them, as
well as all reasonable attorney's fees and litigation costs, and
judgment for all such other amounts as the Court may deem just and
equitable.

Digital Risk, LLC a third-party contractor for Bank of America that
processes residential mortgages residential mortgages on behalf of
BOA. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael L. Elkins, Esq.
          MLE LAW
          633 S. Andrews Ave., Suite 500
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Tel: (954) 401-2608
          E-mail: melkins@mlelawfirm.com

                - and –

          Nolan K. Klein, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF NOLAN KLEIN, P.A.
          633 S. Andrews Ave., Ste. 500
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Tel: (954) 745-0588
          E-mail: klein@nklegal.com


DINEX GROUP: Court Orders Filing of Executed Settlement in Eliaas
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Barbara Eliaas et al., Plaintiffs v. The Dinex Group,
LLC, et al., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-03117 (SDA) (S.D.N.Y.),
Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York ordered the Plaintiffs' counsel
to:

   1. file a fully executed version of the Settlement Agreement;

   2. file the form of Notice of Proposed Settlement that is
      referred to in Sections 1.20 and 2.3(C) of the Settlement
      Agreement as Exhibit A;

   3. file a letter addressing the following questions:

      a. Did Defendants stipulate to a class period (referred to
         in Plaintiffs' memorandum as the Relevant Period) and,
         if so, what is the class period?

      b. What compensation is to be paid to Rust Consulting for
         its services as claims administrator?

      c. What percentage of the class speaks a foreign language
         (e.g., Spanish), and is there is a plan to translate the
         Notice into such foreign language(s)?

   4. Send Microsoft Word versions of the Notice, as well as the
      Proposed Order (ECF No. 76-2), to the Court via email at
      Aaron_NYSDChambers@nysd.uscourts.gov.

On March 29, 2021, the Plaintiffs' counsel filed a motion for
conditional certification of a settlement class and for preliminary
approval of a class action settlement, as well as a memorandum of
law and accompanying Declaration.  The Plaintiffs' submissions are
incomplete and raise certain questions for the Court.  Therefore,
Judge Aaron ordered the foregoing.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 30, 2021 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/wetkdjn9 from Leagle.com.


DIVERSICARE HEALTHCARE: Bid to Drop Arkansas Suit Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Diversicare Healthcare Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11,
2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the
company's motion to dismiss the amended complaint in a purported
class action complaint in the Circuit Court of Garland County,
Arkansas, remains pending.

In January 2009, a purported class action complaint was filed in
the Circuit Court of Garland County, Arkansas against the Company
and certain of its subsidiaries and Garland Nursing &
Rehabilitation Center.

The Company answered the original complaint in 2009, and there was
no other activity in the case until May 2017.

At that time, plaintiff filed an amended complaint asserting new
causes of action. The amended complaint alleges that the defendants
breached their statutory and contractual obligations to the
patients of the Center over a multi-year period by failing to meet
minimum staffing requirements, failing to otherwise adequately
staff the Center and failing to provide a clean and safe living
environment in the Center.

The Company has filed an answer to the amended complaint denying
plaintiffs' allegations and has asked the Court to dismiss the new
causes of action asserted in the amended complaint because the
Company was prejudiced by plaintiff's long delay in filing the
amended complaint.

The Court has not yet ruled on the motion to dismiss, so the
lawsuit remains in its early stages and has not yet been certified
by the court as a class action.

The Company intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Diversicare Healthcare Services, Inc. provides post-acute care
services to skilled nursing center, patients, and residents
primarily in the Southeast, Midwest, and the Southwest United
States Diversicare Healthcare Services, Inc. was founded in 1994
and is based in Brentwood, Tennessee.

DOE DEFENDANT: Faces Hidalgo Suit Over Failure to Pay Proper OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case, MANUEL HIDALGO, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DOE DEFENDANT CORP. d/b/a TAVOLA,
and NICK ACCARDI, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-02560
(S.D.N.Y., March 25, 2021) arises from the Defendants' willful
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.

The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendants as a dishwasher from on
or about July 17, 2018 through on or about March 4, 2021.
Throughout his employment with the Defendants, despite regularly
working more than 40 hours each week with no meal breaks, the
Defendants did not pay him his lawfully earned overtime
compensation at the appropriate rate of one and one-half times his
regular rate of pay for all hours he worked in excess of 40 in a
workweek. In addition, the Defendants did not maintain and keep
records of his hours worked, and did not provide him with a written
notice of wage rates and with proper and accurate wage statements,
the suit alleges.

The Plaintiff brings this collective action complaint seeking to
recover from the Defendants all unpaid overtime wages and
liquidated damages, as well as reasonable attorneys' fees and
litigation costs and expenses, pre- and post-judgment interest, and
other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

The Corporate Defendant operates a restaurant owned by Nick
Accardi. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jacob Aronauer, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JACOB ARONAUER
          225 Broadway, 3rd Floor
          New York, NY 10007
          Tel: (212) 323-6980
          E-mail: jaronauer@aronauerlaw.com


DOLLAR TREE: Almond Milk Label Related Suit Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the consumer dismissed
the January 2020 class action that was filed against the company in
New York relating to Almond Milk sold by the company.

Dollar Tree, Inc. operates discount variety retail stores. It
operates through two segments, Dollar Tree and Family Dollar. The
company was founded in 1986 and is headquartered in Chesapeake,
Virginia.


DOLLAR TREE: Fails to Pay Proper OT to Managers, Stark Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
MELISSA STARK, individually and on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated as a class, Plaintiff v. DOLLAR TREE STORES,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-02173-TLP-tmp (W.D. Tenn., March
25, 2021) brings this collective action complaint against the
Defendant for its alleged unlawful policies and practices that
violated the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff, who was employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid
manager, claims that she and other similarly situated managers
routinely worked 40 or more per week for the Defendant within
weekly pay periods. However, the Defendant did not compensate them
for those times they performed duties before "clocking-in" and
after "clocking out". As a result, the Plaintiff and other
similarly situated managers were not properly paid overtime
compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their regular
rate of pay for all hours they worked over 40 in a workweek, the
suit says.

On behalf of himself and other similarly situated managers, the
Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated
damages, statutory penalties, attorneys' fees and costs,
post-judgment interest, and other relief and damages owed as the
Court deems just and equitable.

Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. is a retail conglomerate that owns and
operates Dollar Tree discount stores throughout the U.S. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
          J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
          Robert E. Turner, Esq.
          Robert E. Morelli, Esq.
          JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT
             OWEN & BRYANT
          262 German Oak Driver
          Memphis, TN 38018
          Tel: (901) 754-8001
          Fax: (901) 754-8524
          E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
                  rbryant@jsyc.com
                  rturner@jsyc.com
                  rmorelli@jsyc.com



DOLLAR TREE: Family Dollar Facing Coffee Mislabelling Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that Family Dollar is facing a
consumer class action suit related to coffee mislabelling

In January 2021, a consumer class action was filed against Family
Dollar in Georgia for breach of warranty based on the allegation
that the coffee Family Dollar sold was mislabeled because the
canister did not contain enough coffee to make the number of cups
of coffee stated on the label.

Dollar Tree, Inc. operates discount variety retail stores. It
operates through two segments, Dollar Tree and Family Dollar. The
company was founded in 1986 and is headquartered in Chesapeake,
Virginia.


DOLLAR TREE: PPE Related Class Suit Resolved
--------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the class action suit
related to personal protective equipment (PPE) has been resolved.

In June 2020, a current employee filed a class action in California
state court on behalf of herself and other non-exempt store
employees in California alleging the company failed to provide an
effective illness and injury prevention program in the company's
California stores and failed to provide personal protective
equipment to the company's store employees thereby engaging in
unfair business practices and creating a public nuisance.

The court granted the company's request to compel arbitration which
resolves the class action matter.

Dollar Tree, Inc. operates discount variety retail stores. It
operates through two segments, Dollar Tree and Family Dollar. The
company was founded in 1986 and is headquartered in Chesapeake,
Virginia.


DOLLAR TREE: Settlement in Former Employee Suit Granted Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the settlement in the
class action suit initiated by a former employee has received court
approval.

In August 2018, a former employee brought suit in California state
court as a class action and as a Private Attorney General Act
(PAGA) representative suit alleging the compant failed to provide
all non-exempt California store employees with compliant rest and
meal breaks, accrued vacation, accurate wage statements and final
pay upon termination of employment.

Dollar Tree said, "We have reached an agreement to settle the
matter and have received the court's approval."

Dollar Tree, Inc. operates discount variety retail stores. It
operates through two segments, Dollar Tree and Family Dollar. The
company was founded in 1986 and is headquartered in Chesapeake,
Virginia.


DOLLAR TREE: Settlement w/ Distribution Employee Granted Final OK
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the court granted final
approval of the settlement in the class action suit initiated by a
distribution center employee.

In April 2015, a distribution center employee filed a class action
in California state court with allegations concerning wages, meal
and rest breaks, recovery periods, wage statements and timely
termination pay.

Dollar Tree said, "We have reached an agreement and received final
approval from the court."

Dollar Tree, Inc. operates discount variety retail stores. It
operates through two segments, Dollar Tree and Family Dollar. The
company was founded in 1986 and is headquartered in Chesapeake,
Virginia.

EASTMAN KODAK: Continues to Defend Class Suits in New Jersey
------------------------------------------------------------
Eastman Kodak Company said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues to
defend securities class action suits in New Jersey.

On August 13, 2020, Tiandong Tang commenced a class action lawsuit
against the Company, its Executive Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer and its Chief Financial Officer in Federal District Court
in the District of New Jersey, and on August 26, 2020, Jimmie A.
McAdams and Judy P. McAdams commenced a class action lawsuit
against the Company and its Executive Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer in Federal District Court in the Southern District of New
York.  

The Securities Class Actions seek damages and other relief based on
alleged violations of federal securities laws in the context of the
DFC Announcement of the potential DFC Loan and DFC Pharmaceutical
Project.  

Since the filing of the Securities Class Actions, procedural
activities have been ongoing relating to the determination of venue
and lead plaintiff.

In addition to the Securities Class Actions, on December 29, 2020
Robert Garfield commenced a class action lawsuit against the
Company and each of the members of its Board of Directors, in the
Superior Court of Mercer County, New Jersey seeking equitable
relief and damages in favor of the Company based on alleged
breaches of fiduciary duty by the Company's Board of Directors
associated with alleged false and misleading proxy statement
disclosure.  

The Company has also received three requests under New Jersey law
demanding, among other things, that the Company take certain
actions in response to alleged breaches of fiduciary duty relating
to option grants and securities transactions in the context of the
DFC Announcement and alleged proxy statement disclosure
deficiencies.  

The Company has responded to and engaged in discussions concerning
these requests, and its response and discussions may serve as the
basis for the requestors to bring shareholder derivative lawsuit.

Eastman Kodak Company is a global technology company focused on
print and advanced materials and chemicals. Kodak provides
industry-leading hardware, software, consumables and services
primarily to customers in commercial print, packaging, publishing,
manufacturing and entertainment. Kodak is committed to
environmental stewardship and ongoing leadership in developing
sustainable solutions.

ELISABETH DEVOS: Sweet Suit Transferred to N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Theresa Sweet, Alicia Davis, Tresa Apodaca,
Chenelle Archibald, Jessica Deegan, Samuel Hood, Jessica Jacobson,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. The
Secretary of the United States Department of Education, The United
States Department of Education, Defendants; Case No. 2:21-mc-14073,
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California on April 7, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:21-mc-80075-WHA to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions.

The U.S. Department of Education -- https://www.ed.gov/ -- is the
agency of the federal government that establishes policy for,
administers and coordinates most federal assistance to
education.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Manuel Juan Dominguez, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL
          2925 PGA Blvd., Suite 200
          Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
          Phone: (561) 833-6575
          Fax: (202) 408-4699
          Email: jdominguez@cohenmilstein.com

               - and -

          Margaret O'Grady, Esq.
          Rebecca Ellis, Esq.
          PROJECT ON PREDATORY STUDENT LENDING OF THE LEGAL
SERVICES C
          122 Boylston Street
          Jamaica Plain, MA 02130
          Phone: (617) 390-2576
          Email: mogrady@law.harvard.edu
                 rellis@law.harvard.edu

The Defendants and Movant are represented by:

          R. Charlie Merritt, Esq.
          UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          919 East Main Street, Suite 1900
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Phone: (202) 616-8098
          Fax: (804) 819-7417
          Email: robert.c.merritt@usdoj.gov

               - and -

          Kevin Hancock, Esq.
          1100 L Street NW, Ste 12304
          Washington, DC 20005
          Phone: (202) 514-3183
          Email: kevin.p.hancock@usdoj.gov

               - and -

          Jesse Michael Panuccio, Esq.
          BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER
          1401 New York Ave. NW
          Washington, DC 20005
          Phone: (202) 237-2727
          Email: jpanuccio@bsfllp.com


ENERGY RECOVERY: Visser Purported Securities Class Suit Closed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Energy Recovery, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 12, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the purported securities
class action suit entitled, Visser, et al. v. Energy Recovery,
Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-05647-VM, is now closed.

On July 21, 2020, a purported securities class action lawsuit was
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York (Visser, et al. v. Energy Recovery, Inc., et al., Case
No. 1:20-cv-05647-VM (S.D.N.Y.)), naming as defendants the Company
and certain of the Company's present and former executive officers.


The Complaint alleged that the defendants violated Section 10(b)
and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by making
materially false and misleading statements, and failed to disclose
material adverse facts concerning, the commercialization of VorTeq
and expectations of future license revenue.

The Complaint further alleged unspecified damages based on a
decline in the market price of the Company's shares following the
announcement of the termination of the VorTeq License Agreement.

The Company believed the complaint was without merit.

On January 20, 2021, upon a motion brought by the Plaintiff, the
court dismissed the case, without prejudice.

The Plaintiff determined to seek dismissal of the action after
completing further investigation into the matter. The matter is now
closed.

Energy Recovery, Inc. is an energy solutions provider to industrial
fluid flow markets worldwide. The company is based in San Leandro,
California.


ENHANCED RECOVERY: Alexander Sues Over Deceptive Collection Letter
------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMER ALEXANDER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ENHANCED RECOVERY COMPANY, LLC,
and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 4:21-cv-00236 (E.D. Tex.,
March 25, 2021) is a class action complaint brought against the
Defendants for their alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant sent the Plaintiff a
collection letter on or about March 5, 2021 in an attempt to
collect an alleged debt incurred to Sprint, subsidiary of T-Mobile
by the Plaintiff primarily for telecommunication services. The
Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant's collection letter is
deceptive because it implies that in exchange for payment of less
than the full balance the consumer will achieve some form of
settlement, when in actuality it is unclear what form of settlement
the letter is offering. The letter also states that the Sprint will
cease all collection activity but does not clarify what will occur
with the rest of the balance and whether the rest of the balance
would be collected by another collection company in the future.
Nevertheless, the Defendant has violated 15 U.S.C. Section 1692e by
making false and misleading representation, the suit asserts.

As a result of the Defendant's alleged deceptive, misleading and
false debt collection practices, the Plaintiff has been damaged. On
behalf of himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff demands actual and statutory damages, litigation
costs together with reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses, pre-
and post-judgment interest, and other relief as the Court may deem
just and proper.

Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC is a debt collector. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yaakov Saks, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Tel: (201) 282-6500 ext. 107
          Fax: (201) 282-6501
          E-mail: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com


ENHANCED RECOVERY: Nabors Sues Over Deceptive Collection Letter
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case, NICOLE NABORS aka NICOLE EPTING, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ENHANCED
RECOVERY COMPANY, LLC and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No.
1:21-cv-01632 (N.D. Ill., March 25, 2021) challenges the
Defendants' abusive debt collection practices pursuant to the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff has an alleged debt incurred to Sprint, subsidiary of
T-Mobile, primarily for telecommunication services.

According to the complaint, the Defendant was contracted by Sprint
to collect the alleged debt. Subsequently on or about December 31,
2020, the Defendant sent the Plaintiff a collection letter which
states an original balance of $441.38. The Plaintiff alleges that
the Defendant's collection letter is deceptive because it implies
that in exchange for payment of less than the full balance the
consumer will achieve some form of settlement, when in actuality it
is unclear what form of settlement the letter is offering. The
letter also states that the Sprint will cease all collection
activity but does not clarify what will occur with the rest of the
balance and whether the rest of the balance would be collected by
another collection company in the future. Nevertheless, the
Defendant has violated 15 U.S.C. Section 1692e by making false and
misleading representation, the suit contends.

As a result of the Defendant's alleged deceptive, misleading and
false debt collection practices, the Plaintiff has been damaged. On
behalf of himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff demands actual and statutory damages, litigation
costs together with reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses, pre-
and post-judgment interest, and other relief as the Court may deem
proper.

Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC is a debt collector. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Raphael Deutsch, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Tel: (201) 282-6500 ext. 107
          Fax: (201) 282-6501
          E-mail: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com


EVERI HOLDINGS: Settlement in Donahue Granted Final Approval
------------------------------------------------------------
Everi Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 15, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the court approved the
final settlement in Geraldine Donahue, et. al. v. Everi FinTech,
et. al.

Geraldine Donahue, et. al. v. Everi FinTech, et. al., is a putative
class action matter filed on December 12, 2018, in the Circuit
Court of Cook County, Illinois, County Division, Chancery Division.


The original defendant was dismissed and the Company was
substituted as the defendant on April 22, 2019.

Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
alleges that Everi FinTech and the Company (i) have violated
certain provisions of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act
(FACTA) by their failure, as agent to the original defendant, to
properly truncate patron credit card numbers when printing cash
access receipts as required under FACTA, and (ii) have been
unjustly enriched through the charging of service fees for
transactions conducted at the original defendant's facilities.

Plaintiff seeks an award of statutory damages, attorney's fees, and
costs.

The parties have reached an agreement in principle for settlement
of this matter, which will include the settlement and resolution of
all the FACTA-related matters pending against the Company and Everi
FinTech.

In the third quarter of 2020, the court granted preliminary
approval of the settlement agreement between the parties, which
will include the settlement and resolution of all the FACTA-related
matters pending against Everi.

On December 3, 2020, the court approved the final settlement. All
claims must be postmarked by February 1, 2021.

Everi Holdings Inc., incorporated on February 4, 2004, is a holding
company. The Company operates through subsidiaries, including Everi
Games Holding Inc. (Everi Games Holding) and Everi Payments Inc.
(Everi Payments or Payments). The Company operates through two
segments: Games and FinTech. The Company provides video and
mechanical reel gaming content and technology solutions, integrated
gaming payments solutions, and compliance and efficiency software.
The company is based in Las Vegas, Nevada.

EXPRESS MESSENGER: Faces Bergman Employment Suit in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
Christina Bergman, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, and on behalf of the general public v. Express Messenger
Systems, Inc., a Delaware Corporation and Does 1-10, Case No.
34-2021-00296352-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., March 12,
2020).

The suit arises from employment-related issues.

Express Messenger, doing business as OnTrac, provides package
delivery services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roman Otkupman, Esq.
          OTKUPMAN LAW FIRM, ALC
          28632 Roadside Dr, Ste 203
          Agoura Hills, CA 91301-6015
          Telephone: (818) 293-5623
          Facsimile: (888) 850-1310
          E-mail: roman@OLFLA.com

FACEBOOK INC: Frankfother Appeals Final Approval of Patel Suit Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Objectors DAWN FRANKFOTHER and CATHY FLANAGAN filed an appeal from
a court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled IN RE FACEBOOK
BIOMETRIC INFORMATION PRIVACY LITIGATION, Case No.
3:15-cv-03747-JD, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Francisco.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Plaintiffs
Nimesh Patel, Adam Pezen and Carlo Licata brought the consolidated
class action lawsuit against Defendant Facebook, for violations of
the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIPA"). The
consolidated complaint alleges that Facebook violated Sections
15(a) and 15(b) of BIPA by collecting and storing the class
members' biometric data in the form of scans of their faces without
prior notice or consent. Facebook harvested the scans in connection
with its "Tag Suggestions" program, which looks for and identifies
people's faces in photographs uploaded to Facebook to promote user
tagging.

The Objectors seek a review of the Court's Order dated February 26,
2021, granting final approval of the class action settlement. The
Order further awarded Class counsel $97.5 million in attorneys'
fees, with 15% of the award to be held back pending a further
order, which will be issued after counsel have filed the
post-distribution accounting required under the District's
Procedural Guidance for Class Action Settlement settlements.

The appellate case is captioned as Nimesh Patel, et al v. Facebook,
Inc., Case No. 21-15553, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit, filed on March 29, 2021.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellants Cathy Flanagan and Dawn Frankfother Mediation
Questionnaire was due on April 5, 2021;

   -- Transcript shall be ordered by April 26, 2021;

   -- Transcript is due on May 26, 2021;

   -- Appellants Cathy Flanagan and Dawn Frankfother opening brief
is due on July 6, 2021;

   -- Appellees Facebook, Inc., Carlo Licata, Nimesh Patel and Adam
Pezen answering brief is due on August 5, 2021; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief. [BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees NIMESH PATEL, ADAM PEZEN, and CARLO LICATA,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, are
represented by:

          Ryan D. Andrews, Esq.
          Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
          Jay Edelson, Esq.
          Corban S. Rhodes, Esq.
          EDELSON P.C.
          350 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 1400
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 589-6374
          E-mail: randrews@edelson.com
                  rbalabanian@edelson.com
                  jedelson@edelson.com

               - and -

          Michael P. Canty, Esq.
          Corban S. Rhodes, Esq.
          LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005-1108
          Telephone: (212) 907-0700
          E-mail: mcanty@labaton.com
                  crhodes@labaton.com

               - and -

          Patrick J. Coughlin, Esq.
          Ellen Gusikoff Stewart, Esq.  
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          E-mail: patc@rgrdlaw.com
                  elleng@rgrdlaw.com  

               - and -

          Stuart Andrew Davidson, Esq.
          Mark J. Dearman, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          120 E. Palmetto Park Road
          Boca Raton, FL 33432   
          Telephone: (561) 750-3000
          E-mail: sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com
                  mdearman@rgrdlaw.com      

               - and -

          Shawn Anthony Williams, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD, LLP
          One Montgomery Street
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 288-4545
          E-mail: shawnw@rgrdlaw.com     

Objectors-Appellants DAWN FRANKFOTHER and CATHY FLANAGAN are
represented by:

          Kendrick Jan, Esq.
          JAN & JAN
          402 West Broadway, Suite 2700
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 607-9750

               - and -

          John Jacob Pentz, III, Esq.
          19 Widow Rites Lane
          Sudbury, MA 01776
          Telephone: (978) 261-5725

Defendant-Appellee FACEBOOK, INC. is represented by:

          Lauren R. Goldman, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN, LLP
          1675 Broadway
          New York, NY 10019-5820
          Telephone: (212) 506-2500
          E-mail: lrgoldman@mayerbrown.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey M. Gutkin, Esq.
          COOLEY LLP
          101 California Street, 5th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-5800
          Telephone: (415) 693-2026
          E-mail: gutkinjm@cooley.com

               - and -

          John Nadolenco, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN LLP
          350 South Grand Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 229-5173
          E-mail: jnadolenco@mayerbrown.com  

               - and -

          Richard Nowak
          MAYER BROWN LLP
          71 South Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60606-4637
          Telephone: (312) 701-8809
          E-mail: rnowak@mayerbrown.com

               - and -

          Archis Ashok Parasharami, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN LLP
          1999 K Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 263-3000
          E-mail: aparasharami@mayerbrown.com  

               - and -

          Michael Evan Rayfield, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN LLP
          1221 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10020
          Telephone: (212) 506-2560
          E-mail: mrayfield@mayerbrown.com

               - and -

          Michael Graham Rhodes, Esq.
          Whitty Somvichian, Esq.
          COOLEY LLP
          101 California Street, 5th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-5800
          Telephone: (415) 693-2181
          E-mail: rhodesmg@cooley.com
                  wsomvichian@cooley.com

FARRIOR CORP: Nooney Seeks Delivery Drivers' Unreimbursed Expenses
------------------------------------------------------------------
TIMOTHY NOONEY, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons, Plaintiff v. FARRIOR CORPORATION and MARK FARRIOR,
Defendants, Case No. 5:21-cv-00146-D (E.D.N.C., March 29, 2021)
alleges the Defendants of violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a delivery driver
to deliver pizzas and other food items to customers' homes or
workplaces.

The Plaintiff claims that the Defendants required him and other
delivery drivers to maintain and pay for safe, legally operable,
and insured automobiles when delivering pizza and other food items,
and thus they incurred costs for gasoline, vehicle parts and
fluids, insurance, and other expenses while performing their
duties. However, the Defendant employed a reimbursement policy
which reimburses drivers on a per-delivery basis that equates to
below the IRS business mileage reimbursement rate or a much less
than a reasonable approximation of delivery drivers' automobile
expenses. As a result, the Defendants systematically deprived the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated delivery drivers of
reasonably approximate reimbursements, resulting in wages below the
North Carolina minimum wage in some or all workweeks. In addition,
the Defendants failed to keep accurate records of deductions from
their delivery drivers' wages, the Plaintiff adds.

The Plaintiff seeks damages in the amount of their unpaid earned
compensation, liquidated damages, plus interest at the legal rate,
litigation costs and attorneys' fees, pre- and post-judgment
interest, and other relief as the Court deems fair and equitable.

Farrior Corporation operates numerous Domino's Pizza franchise
stores, owned by Mark Farrior. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jacob J. Modla, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JASON
             E. TAYLOR P.C.
          115 Elk Ave.
          Rock Hill, SC 29730
          Tel: (803) 328-0898
          E-mail: jmodla@jasonetaylor.com


FIGPIN COLLECT: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Quezada Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE QUEZADA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FIGPIN COLLECT AWESOME, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:21-cv-02562 (S.D.N.Y., March 25, 2021) brings this class
action complaint against the Defendant for its alleged failure to
design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by visually-impaired people
in violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person, who
cannot use a computer without the assistance of screen-reading
software.

The Plaintiff claims that during his most recent visit to the
Defendant's Website, www.figpin, in March 2021 to browse and
potentially make a purchase, he has encountered multiple access
barriers which denied him a user experience similar to that of a
sighted individual. The Website allegedly lacked of a variety of
features and accommodations, which effectively barred him from
being able to enjoy the privileges and benefits of the Defendant's
public accommodations offered on its Website.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has engaged in acts of
intentional discrimination as a result of its failure to comply
with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.1, which would
provide the Plaintiff and other visually-impaired consumers with
equal access to the Website. Moreover, the Defendant has failed to
take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy their discriminatory
conduct.

On behalf of himself and on behalf other similarly situated
visually-impaired consumers, the Plaintiff seeks a preliminary and
permanent injunction prohibiting the Defendant from violating the
ADA and requiring the Defendant to take all the steps necessary to
make its Website into full compliance with the requirements set
forth in the ADA. The Plaintiff also demands for compensatory
damages from the Defendants, including statutory and punitive
damages and fines, as well as pre- and post-judgment interest,
litigation costs and expenses together with reasonable attorneys'
and expert fees, and other relief as the Court deems just and
proper.

Figpin Collect Awesome, Inc. is an enamel pins manufacturing
company that owns and operates the Website. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          MARS KHAIMOV LAW, PLLC
          10826 64th Avenue, Second Floor
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Tel: (929) 324-0717
          E-mail: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com


FIRST ADVANTAGE: Applicant Sues Over Illegal Background Check
-------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN DOE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FIRST ADVANTAGE BACKGROUND SERVICES CORP.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-02857 (C.D. Cal., April 2, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendant for violations of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act, the Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies
Act, and the California Unfair Competition Law.

The case arises from the Defendant's practice of communicating
information about job-seekers' complete, life-long criminal
history, including arrests, dismissed charges, and other items that
do not reflect any actual criminal conviction, from the Federal
Bureau of Investigation's fingerprint database to potential
employers with no time limitation. The Plaintiff was denied
employment at Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. based on a First Advantage
background-check report showing that he had been arrested over 10
years before the date of the report, well outside FCRA/ICRAA's
seven-year deadline. As a result of First Advantage's furnishing
the report containing this information to Wells Fargo, the
Plaintiff suffered injuries, including injuries to his statutorily
protected reputational rights, loss of employment, emotional
distress, and damage to his reputation, the suit says.

First Advantage Background Services Corp. is a background check
company, with its principal place of business at 1 Concourse
Parkway, N.E., Suite 200, Atlanta, Georgia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
              
         Michael A. Caddell, Esq.
         Cynthia B. Chapman, Esq.
         Amy E. Tabor, Esq.
         CADDELL & CHAPMAN
         628 East 9th Street
         Houston TX 77007-1722
         Telephone: (713) 751-0400
         Facsimile: (713) 751-0906
         E-mail: mac@caddellchapman.com
                 cbc@caddellchapman.com
                 aet@caddellchapman.com

FIRST SOLAR: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, Pryke Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
MEGAN PRYKE, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. FIRST SOLAR, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:21-cv-00681-JGC (N.D. Ohio, March 26, 2021) brings this
collective action complaint against the Defendant for its alleged
unlawful practices and policies that violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a non-exempt and
hourly-paid manufacturing operator between July 2018 and December
2019.

The Plaintiff contends that although she and the other similarly
situated manufacturing operators worked in excess of 40 hour in a
workweek, the Defendant denied them of significant amounts of
overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their
regular rate of pay for all hours they worked over 40 per week.
That is because the Defendant has failed to include the bonuses and
shift premiums paid to them in their regular rate of pay for the
purpose of calculating their overtime compensation, the Plaintiff
adds.

As a result of the Defendant's alleged unlawful practices and
policies, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated manufacturing
employees have suffered damages.

The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief from the Defendant such as
actual damages for unpaid wages, liquidated damages, pre- and
post-judgment interest at the statutory rate, attorneys' fees,
costs and disbursements, and other relief as the Court deems just
and proper.

First Solar, Inc. is a manufacturer of solar panels. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lori M. Griffin, Esq.
          Chastity L. Christy, Esq.
          Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
          THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
          920 Rockefeller Building
          614 W. Superior Avenue
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Tel: (216) 696-5000
          Fax: (216) 696-7005
          E-mail: lori@lazzarolawfirm.com
                  chastity@lazzarolawfirm.com
                  anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com


FLAGSTAR BANCORP: Faces Beyer Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------
GRACE BEYER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FLAGSTAR BANCORP, INC. d/b/a FLAGSTAR BANK;
and ACCELLION, INC., Defendants, Case No. 5:21-cv-02239 (N.D. Cal.,
Mar. 30, 2021) is a class action by the Plaintiff and the Class who
had their sensitive personal information—including but not
limited to names, phone numbers, addresses, Social Security numbers
(SSN), tax records, and other banking information (collectively,
"Personal Information"), disclosed to unauthorized third parties
during a data breach compromising Accellion's legacy File Transfer
Appliance software (the "Data Breach").

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that during the Data Breach,
unauthorized persons gained access to Accellion's clients' files by
exploiting a vulnerability in Accellion's FTA platform. On March 5,
2021, Flagstar publicly confirmed that the Personal Information of
certain customers was compromised in the well-publicized Data
Breach of its file transfer software vendor, Accellion.

The Defendants were well aware of the data security shortcomings in
Accellion's FTA product. Nevertheless, the Defendants continued to
use FTA, putting Flagstar's customers at risk of being impacted by
a breach. The Defendants' failures to ensure that the file transfer
services and products used by Flagstar were adequately secure fell
far short of their obligations and the Plaintiff and Class members'
reasonable expectations for data privacy, jeopardized the security
of the Plaintiff and Class member's Personal Information, and
exposed the Plaintiff and Class members to fraud and identity theft
or the serious risk of fraud and identity theft, the suit
contends.

Flagstar Bancorp, Inc. is the holding company for Flagstar Bank,
FSB. The Bank attracts deposits from the general public and
originates or acquires residential mortgage loans. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tina Wolfson, Esq.
          Robert Ahdoot, Esq.
          Theodore Maya, Esq.
          AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
          2600 W. Olive Avenue, Suite 500
          Burbank, CA 91505-4521
          Telephone: (310) 474-9111
          Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
          E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
                  rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com
                  tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com

               -and-

          Andrew W. Ferich, Esq.
          AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
          201 King of Prussia Road, Suite 650
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Telephone: (310) 474-9111
          Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
          E-mail: aferich@ahdootwolfson.com


FOLGER COFFEE: Sorin Suit Transferred to W.D. Missouri
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Marcia Sorin, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. The Folger Coffee Company, a
subsidiary of the J.M. Smucker Company, Case No. 9:20-cv-80897, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Missouri on April 2, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:21-cv-00222-BP to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Folgers Coffee -- https://www.folgerscoffee.com/ -- is a brand of
coffee produced in the United States, and sold there, in Asia,
Canada and in Mexico.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Emily Cornelia Komlossy, Esq.
          KOMLOSSY LAW P.A.
          4700 Sheridan Street, Suite J
          Hollywood, FL 33021
          Phone: (954) 842-2021
          Fax: (954) 416-6223
          Email: eck@komlossylaw.com

               - and -

          Beth A. Keller, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10017-6531
          Phone: (212) 983-9330
          Fax: (212) 983-9331
          Email: bkeller@keller-lawfirm.com

               - and -

          Elaine A. Ryan, Esq.
          Patricia Nicole Syverson, Esq.
          BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALINT, PC
          2325 E Camelback Rd., Suite 300
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          Phone: (602) 274-1100
          Email: eryan@bffb.com
                 psyverson@bffb.com

               - and -

          Laurence D Paskowitz, Esq.
          PASKOWITZ LAW FIRM PC
          60 East 42nd Street
          46th Floor
          New York, NY 10165
          Phone: 212-68-0696

               - and -

          Roy L. Jacobs, Esq.
          ROY JACOBS & ASSOCIATES
          420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 2440
          New York, NY 10170
          Phone: (212) 867-1156
          Email: rjacobs@jacobsclasslaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Cristina Isabel Calvar, Esq.
          WINSTON, STRAWN LLP
          200 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10166
          Phone: (212) 294-5331
          Email: ccalvar@winston.com

               - and -

          Megan L Whipp, Esq.
          WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
          333 South Grand Avenue, 38th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1543
          Phone: (213) 615-1878
          Fax: (213) 615-1750
          Email: MWhipp@winston.com

               - and -

          Ronald Y Rothstein, Esq.
          Sean H Suber, Esq.
          WINSTON & STRAWN/Chicago
          35 W. Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Phone: (312) 558-7464
          Fax: (312) 558-5700
          Email: rrothstein@winston.com
                 ssuber@winston.com


FOLGER COFFEE: Tan Consumer Suit Moved From C.D. Cal. to W.D. Mo.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled FREDERICK TAN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. THE FOLGER COFFEE COMPANY, a
subsidiary of the J. M. SMUCKER COMPANY, Case No. 2:20-cv-09370,
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California to the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Missouri on April 5, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Missouri assigned
Case No. 4:21-cv-00220-BP to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged breach of express
warranty, breach of implied warranty, intentional and negligent
misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and violations of the
California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the California's False
Advertising Law, and the California's Unfair Competition Law by
failing to disclose to consumers the true number of servings
contained within Folgers coffee product canisters.

The Folger Coffee Company is a coffee manufacturer headquartered in
Orrville, Ohio. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
         
         David N. Lake, Esq.
         LAW OFFICES OF DAVID N. LAKE
         A Professional Corporation
         16130 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 650
         Encino, CA 91436
         Telephone: (818) 788-5100
         Facsimile: (818) 479-9990
         E-mail: david@lakelawpc.com

                  - and –

         Laurence D. Paskowitz, Esq.
         THE PASKOWITZ LAW FIRM P.C.
         208 East 51st Street, Suite 380
         New York, NY 10022
         Telephone: (212) 685-0969
         E-mail: lpaskowitz@pasklaw.com

                  - and –

         Beth A. Keller, Esq.
         LAW OFFICES OF BETH A. KELLER, P.C.
         118 North Bedford Road, Suite 100
         Mount Kisco, NY 10549
         Telephone: (914) 752-3040
         E-mail: bkeller@keller-lawfirm.com

                  - and –

         Emily Komlossy, Esq.
         KOMLOSSY LAW P.A.
         4700 Sheridan Street, Suite J
         Hollywood, FL 33021
         Telephone: (954) 842-2021
         Facsimile: (954) 416-6223
         E-mail: eck@komlossylaw.com

FOSSIL GROUP: Holden Suit Removed From State Court to M.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as LAUREN HOLDEN, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. FOSSIL GROUP,
INC., Case No. 16-2021-CA-000673 (Filed Feb. 4, 2021), was removed
from the Circuit Court of the Fourth Judicial Circuit in and for
Duval County, Florida to the United States District Court  for the
Middle District of Florida, Jacksonville Division on March 12,
2021.

The Middle District of Florida Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:21-cv-00300-TJC-JBT to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff alleges Fossil's use of session replay software on
its Website that violates the Florida Security of Communications
Act.

Fossil Group is an American fashion designer and manufacturer
founded in 1984 by Tom Kartsotis and based in Richardson, Texas.
Their brands include Fossil, Relic, Michele Watch, Skagen Denmark,
Misfit, WSI, and Zodiac Watches.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
          14 NE 1st Ave, Suite 705
          Miami, FL 33132
          E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com

               - and -

          Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
          SCOTT EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
          20900 NE 30th Ave, Suite 417
          Aventura, FL 33180
          E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com

               - and -

          Manuel Hiraldo, Esq.
          HIRALDO P.A.
          401 E Las Olas Blvd, Suite 1400
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Sara F. Holladay, Esq.
          Emily Y. Rottmann, Esq.
          Brittney L. Difato, Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS LLP
          50 N. Laura Street, Suite 3300
          Jacksonville, Florida 32202
          Telephone: (904) 798-3200
          Facsimile: (904) 798-3207
          E-mail: sholladay@mcguirewoods.com
                  erottmann@mcguirewoods.com
                  bdifato@mcguirewoods.com
                  clambert@mcguirewoods.com
                  flservice@mcguirewoods.com

FREDY LANDSCAPING: Fails to Pay Overtime, Vargas Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
NELSON I. VARGAS, and other similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiff v. FREDY LANDSCAPING INC., and FREDY O. CABEZAS,
individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-21144-CMA (S.D. Fla.,
March 25, 2021) brings this complaint as a collective action
against the Defendants to recover money damages for unpaid overtime
wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants approximately from
July 1, 2020 to February 11, 2021 as a non-exempted full-time
landscaper.

The Plaintiff asserts that during his employment with the
Defendants, he worked 9.5 hours daily and was unable to take bona
fide lunch hours. Despite working more than 40 hours weekly, the
Defendants did not pay him overtime compensation at the rate of one
and one-half times his regular rate of pay for all hours he worked
in excess of 40 in a workweek. Allegedly, the Defendants were able
to keep track of the hours he and other similarly situated
landscapers worked although they did not clock in and out. In
addition, the Defendant did not provide them with wage statements,
the Plaintiff adds.

The Plaintiff seeks to recover all unpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees ad litigations
costs, and other relief as the Court deems equitable and just
and/or available pursuant to the FLSA.

Fredy Landscaping, Inc. is a company that provides landscaping
services owned and managed by Fredy O. Cabezas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
          ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
          9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
          Miami, FL 33156
          Tel: (305) 446-1500
          Fax: (305) 446-1502
          E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


FRONTLINE ASSET: Coss Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Frontline Asset
Strategies. The case is styled as Adrian Coss, individually and on
behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals v. Frontline
Asset Strategies, Case No. 1:21-cv-01862 (N.D. Ill., April 7,
2021).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

Frontline Asset Strategies -- https://frontlineas.com/ -- is a
collection agency based out of Minnesota.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James C. Vlahakis, Esq.
          SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
          2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
          Lombard, IL 60148
          Phone: (630) 575-8181
          Email: jvlahakis@sulaimanlaw.com


FUNKO INC: Continues to Defend Kanugonda Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Funko, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues to
defend a class action suit entitled, Kanugonda v. Funko, Inc. et
al.

On June 4, 2018, a putative class action lawsuit entitled Kanugonda
v. Funko, Inc., et al. was filed in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Washington against the company,
certain of its officers and directors, and certain other
defendants.

On January 4, 2019, a lead plaintiff was appointed in that case.

On April 30, 2019, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint
against the previously named defendants.

The parties to the federal action, now captioned Berkelhammer v.
Funko, Inc. et al., have agreed to a stay of that action pending
developments in the state case.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Funko, Inc., a pop culture consumer products company, designs,
sources, and distributes licensed pop culture products in the
United States, China, Vietnam, and the United Kingdom. Funko, Inc.
was founded in 2017 and is headquartered in Everett, Washington.


FUNKO INC: Court Dismisses Consolidated Ferreira-Nahas Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Funko, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company's motion to
dismiss the consolidated putative class action suit entitled,
Ferreira v. Funko, Inc. et al., has been granted.

On March 10, 2020, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a
putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court
for the Central District of California against the company and
certain of its officers, entitled Ferreira v. Funko, Inc. et al.

The complaint alleges that the company violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended as well as
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by making allegedly materially
misleading statements in the company's earnings announcement and
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30,
2019, as well as by omitting material facts necessary to make the
statements made therein not misleading.

The lawsuit seeks, among other things, compensatory damages and
attorneys' fees and costs.

Two additional complaints making substantially similar
allegations—Nahas v. Funko, Inc. et al. and Dachev v. Funko, Inc.
et al. were filed April 3, 2020 in the United States District Court
for the Central District of California and April 9, 2020 in the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington, respectively.

On June 11, 2020, the Central District of California actions were
consolidated for all purposes into one action under the Ferreira
caption, and a lead plaintiff and lead counsel were appointed
pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act.

Lead plaintiff filed the consolidated complaint on July 31, 2020,
against the company and certain of its officers and directors, as
well as entities affiliated with ACON Funko Investors, L.L.C.
(ACON).

The consolidated complaint added Section 10(b) and 20(a) claims
based on the company's earnings announcement and Quarterly Report
on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2019, as well as claims
under Section 20A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

All defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated action on October
2, 2020, and briefing on the motions to dismiss concluded on
January 29, 2021.

On February 26, 2021, the Court granted the company's motion to
dismiss the Ferreira action, allowing the plaintiffs leave to amend
the complaint.

On June 25, 2020, the Dachev action was voluntarily dismissed.

Funko, Inc., a pop culture consumer products company, designs,
sources, and distributes licensed pop culture products in the
United States, China, Vietnam, and the United Kingdom. Funko, Inc.
was founded in 2017 and is headquartered in Everett, Washington.


FUNKO INC: Stockholders Appeal Dismissal of Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Funko, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the appeal on the order
of dismissal in the consolidated putative class action suit
entitled, In re Funko, Inc. Securities Litigation, is pending.

Between November 16, 2017 and June 12, 2018, seven purported
stockholders of the Company filed putative class action lawsuits in
the Superior Court of Washington in and for King County against the
company, certain of its officers and directors, ACON Funko
Investors, L.L.C. (ACON), Fundamental, the underwriters of our IPO,
and certain other defendants.

On July 2, 2018, the suits were ordered consolidated for all
purposes into one action under the title In re Funko, Inc.
Securities Litigation.

On August 1, 2018, plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint
against the company, certain of its officers and directors, ACON,
Fundamental, and certain other defendants.

On October 1, 2018, the company moved to dismiss the action. The
motion was fully briefed as of November 30, 2018, and oral argument
on the motion was held on May 3, 2019.

On August 2, 2019, the Court granted the company's motion to
dismiss the consolidated state litigation, allowing plaintiffs
leave to amend the complaint.

The Court found, inter alia, that "Funko's statements regarding its
financial disclosures were not materially false or misleading" and
that "plaintiffs have not shown that Funko's 'opinion statements'
were false or that such statements were not simply corporate
optimism or puffery." On October 3, 2019, plaintiffs filed a first
amended consolidated complaint.

The company moved to dismiss that complaint on December 5, 2019.
The motion was fully briefed as of March 17, 2020, and oral
argument on the motion was held on May 15, 2020.

On August 5, 2020, the Superior Court of Washington in and for King
County dismissed the consolidated action with prejudice.

Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Washington Court of
Appeals on September 4, 2020 and their opening brief on February
12, 2021.

Funko said, "We expect briefing on the appeal to conclude
mid-2021."

Funko, Inc., a pop culture consumer products company, designs,
sources, and distributes licensed pop culture products in the
United States, China, Vietnam, and the United Kingdom. Funko, Inc.
was founded in 2017 and is headquartered in Everett, Washington.


FURY FILM: Davis Files Suit in California Superior Court
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Fury Film
Franchise, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Chris Davis,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The
Fury Film Franchise, LLC, GRODNIK DAN, SKIBA BRIAN, Case No.
21STCV12957 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., April 5, 2021).

The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case."

The Fury Film Franchise, LLC is an Arizona Domestic LLC filed On
May 3, 2019.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alan Harris, Esq.
          HARRIS & RUBLE
          655 N Central, Ave 17th floor
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Phone: (323) 962-3777
          Fax: (323) 962-3004
          Email: law@harrisandruble.com



FUTURE MOTION: Soto Remanded to Santa Cruz County Superior Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen of the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California remands the case, ELIJAH SOTO,
Plaintiff v. FUTURE MOTION, INC., Defendant, Case No.
20-cv-06982-SVK (N.D. Cal.), to the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Santa Cruz.

In 2020, Plaintiff Soto purchased a Onewheel+ XR single-wheeled
electric skateboard from the website of Defendant Future.  The
Plaintiff brings the product defect action on behalf of a class of
XR owners.

The Defendant designs, manufactures, markets, and sells several
models of single-wheeled skateboards.  It released the XR in
January 2018, and it sells the XR over the internet and in retail
stores.  After reviewing advertisements for the XR, the Plaintiff,
who is a resident of California, purchased an XR in January 2020
from the Defendant's official website.

In May 2020, the motor on the Plaintiff's XR cut in and out while
he was riding on a trail.  After contacting the Defendant and
following its advice to leave the XR on the charger overnight,
which did not fix the problem, the Plaintiff followed the
Defendant's instructions to ship his XR to its repair facility in
San Jose, California.  The Defendant found a component in the
battery circuit that was not functioning properly.  It then
replaced the battery circuit, tested the board, and shipped it back
to the Plaintiff.

In June 2020, the motor on the Plaintiff's XR cut off again while
he was trial riding.  He then repeated the process of shipping his
board to the Defendant's repair facility in San Jose.  After
evaluating the Plaintiff's board, the Defendant claimed it was
powering on and charging properly, but it told the Plaintiff it had
discovered a new problem.  According to the Defendant, there were
multiple stripped screws and loose bolts on the rails of the board
as a result of a tire change by a third party, which it claimed was
not covered by the product's warranty.  The Defendant informed the
Plaintiff that the XR would be returned only if he paid it $172 for
parts and labor for a rail replacement and $80 for roundtrip
shipping.

After the Plaintiff refused the repair and demanded return of his
board, the Defendant initially demanded more than $250 to reinstall
the necessary parts.  It did not return the Plaintiff's XR until
after he hired counsel and filed his original complaint.  The
returned board had the original rails and all necessary parts
installed.

The Plaintiff filed the original complaint in the case in Santa
Cruz County Superior Court on Sept. 8, 2020.  The Defendant removed
the case to the Court on Oct. 7, 2020.  After the Defendant filed a
motion to dismiss and a motion to strike directed at the Original
Complaint, the Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint on Nov.
6, 2020.

Following filing of the FAC, the Defendant filed a motion to
dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  It later withdrew that
motion, but the parties invited the Court to request further
briefing on the issue of subject matter jurisdiction.

The Defendant then filed a motion to dismiss the FAC pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).  It also moved to strike
the class allegations in the FAC.  The Plaintiff opposes both
motions.  Following completion of the briefing on the motions to
dismiss and strike the FAC, as directed by the Court, the parties
submitted a joint supplemental brief addressing whether the Court
has subject matter jurisdiction over the case.

The question the Court must determine is whether any member of the
proposed class is a citizen of a state other than California.  As
defined in the original state court complaint in the case, the
class included "all persons in the United States and its
Territories who, during the applicable Class Period, owned any new
or used Class Vehicle in California."  However, in the FAC, which
the Plaintiff filed after removal, the class is defined as "all
persons in California who currently own or have owned any new or
used Class Vehicle, and who are currently domiciled in
California."

Generally, a "natural person's state citizenship is determined by
her domicile, not her state of residence."

Citing Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir.
2001), Magistrate Judge van Keulen states that "a person's domicile
is her permanent home, where she resides with the intention to
remain or to which she intends to return."  As a result, if the
Magistrate Judge can consider the FAC, she must conclude that
CAFA's minimal diversity is not met since all the class members as
well as the Defendant are "domiciled" in California and therefore
are California citizens for diversity purposes.

For several reasons, Magistrate Judge van Keulen concludes that she
may consider the FAC in the case in determining whether the Court
has subject matter jurisdiction.  First, although the FAC in one
respect changed the class definition, it also clarified that
definition.  Second, the FAC's clarification of the class
definition is consistent with other allegations in the Original
Complaint that focused on California.  Third, the Original
Complaint did not address CAFA's requirements, which is
understandable since it was filed in state court.  Fourth, and
finally, Magistrate Judge van Keulen notes that the parties have
themselves previously taken the position that the FAC clarified the
Original Complaint.

The Court has an independent duty to confirm that it has subject
matter jurisdiction.  The parties cannot create subject matter
jurisdiction by agreement or inaction.  As she discussed,
Magistrate Judge van Keulen that regardless of the parties' present
positions on the issue, she interprets the FAC as at least in part
a clarification of the original vague and defective class
definition and thus considers it in determining whether federal
subject matter jurisdiction exists.

On a final note, she rejects the Defendant's argument that the
exception in Benko v. Quality Loan Serv. Corp. 789 F.3d 1111 (9th
Cir. 2015) is now wholly inapplicable because remanding the matter
would plainly prejudice Future Motion because it has fully briefed
a second set of motions to dismiss and to strike.  She says
although the Defendant appears to be correct that the Plaintiff
changed positions on whether the Court has subject matter
jurisdiction, the fact remains that the Defendant filed, then
withdrew, its motion challenging subject matter jurisdiction.  In
any event, Magistrate Judge van Keulen cannot proceed in a case
where the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction, and she
concludes that this is such a case.

Because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the case,
Magistrate Judge van Keulen remands the case to Santa Cruz County
Superior Court.  She denies as moot the Defendant's motion to
dismiss and motion to strike directed at the FAC.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 31, 2021 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/yv9n3sne from Leagle.com.


GENERAL MILLS: Faces deVera Suit Over Products' Phthalates Content
------------------------------------------------------------------
MICHELLE DEVERA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GENERAL MILLS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
4:21-cv-02418 (N.D. Cal., April 2, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendant for breach of implied warranty under the Song-Beverly
Act and fraud.

According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to disclose to
consumers, including the Plaintiff, that its Macaroni & Cheese
products contain harmful chemicals known as phthalates. As a result
of the Defendant's alleged omission, the Plaintiff and Class
members have been injured and harmed because they would not have
purchased the products, or at the very least, would have paid
significantly less for them.

General Mills, Inc. is an American multinational manufacturer and
marketer of branded consumer foods sold through retail stores,
headquartered in Golden Valley, Minnesota. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
              
         L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
         BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
         1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
         Walnut Creek, CA 94596
         Telephone: (925) 300-4455
         Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
         E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com

GENERAL MOTORS: Leace FSCA Class Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled CHERYL LEACE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, Case No.
CACE-21-004374, was removed from the Circuit Court of the
Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida, to
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on
April 2, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned
Case No. 0:21-cv-60721-RAR to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the
Florida Security of Communications Act by intercepting the
electronic communications of the Plaintiff and all others similarly
situated Florida residents without prior consent.

General Motors LLC is an American multinational corporation that
manufactures vehicles, headquartered in Detroit, Michigan. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
         
         Aldo M. Leiva, Esq.
         BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC
         1 Financial Plaza, Suite 1620
         Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394
         Telephone: (954) 768-1600
         E-mail: aleiva@bakerdonelson.com

                - and –

         Hal K. Litchford, Esq.
         Mikhal Wright, Esq.
         BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC
         200 South Orange Ave., Ste. 2900
         Post Office Box 1549
         Orlando, FL 32801
         Telephone: (407) 422-6600
         Facsimile: (407) 841-0325
         E-mail: hlitchford@bakerdonelson.com
                 mwright@bakedonelson.com

GENIE ENERGY: Preliminary Bid to Dismiss Davis Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Genie Energy Ltd. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the preliminary motion to
dismiss the putative class action suit initiated by Danelle Davis,
is pending.

On February 18, 2020, named Plaintiff Davis filed a putative class
action complaint against Residents Energy and Genie Retail Energy
(GRE) in United States District of New Jersey alleging violations
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C Section 227 et
seq. Residents Energy denies allegations in the complaint and plans
to vigorously defend this action.

On or around October 9, 2020, Residents Energy filed a preliminary
motion to dismiss one of the counts in the complaint, and to
dismiss Genie Retail Energy as a named defendant.

Based upon the Company's preliminary assessment of this matter, a
loss is not considered probable, nor is the amount of loss if any,
estimable as of December 31, 2020.

Genie Energy Ltd., through its subsidiaries, operates as a retail
energy provider; and an oil and gas exploration company. The
company operates through three segments: Genie Retail Energy; Genie
Energy Services; and Genie Oil and Gas, Inc. Genie Energy Ltd. was
incorporated in 2001 and is headquartered in Newark, New Jersey.


GENUINE DATA: Faces Jackson Suit Over Alleged Violation of FCRA
---------------------------------------------------------------
NIGEL E. JACKSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GENUINE DATA SERVICES, LLC,
Defendant, Case 3:21-cv-00211-DJN (S.D. Va., Mar. 30, 2021) alleges
violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Genuine Data Services LLC collects information from governmental
records and provides that public record information to our
customers. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Leonard A. Bennett, Esq.
          Craig C. Marchiando, Esq.
          CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          763 J. Clyde Morris Blvd., Ste. 1-A
          Newport News, VA 23601
          Telephone: (757) 930-3660
          Facsimile: (757) 930-3662
          E-mail: lenbennett@clalegal.com
                  craig@clalegal.com

               -and-

          Kristi C. Kelly, Esq.
          Andrew J. Guzzo, Esq.
          Casey S. Nash, Esq.
          KELLY GUZZO, PLC
          3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202
          Fairfax, VA 22030
          Telephone: (703) 424-7572
          Facsimile: (703) 591-0167
          E-mail: kkelly@kellyguzzo.com
                  aguzzo@kellyguzzo.com
                  casey@kellyguzzo.com


GERBER PRODUCTS: Adams Files Suit in Eastern District of Virginia
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gerber Products
Company. The case is styled as Kelli Adams, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated v. Gerber Products Company, Case
No. 1:21-cv-00410-LO-TCB (E.D. Va., April 2, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Gerber Products Company -- https://www.gerber.com/ -- is an
American purveyor of baby food and baby products headquartered in
Florham Park, New Jersey, with plans to relocate to Arlington,
Virginia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven Jeffrey Toll, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC (DC)
          1100 New York Ave NW, Suite 500, West Tower
          Washington, DC 20005-3965
          Phone: (202) 408-4600
          Email: stoll@cohenmilstein.com


GERON CORP: Bid to Nix IMbark Related Putative Class Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Geron Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the motion to dismiss
filed in the consolidated putative clas action suit related to
IMbark, is pending.

Between January 23 and March 5, 2020, three putative securities
class action lawsuits were filed against us and certain of our
officers.

One of the lawsuits was voluntarily dismissed on March 19, 2020.
The other two lawsuits, filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, or the Northern District, were
consolidated by the Court on May 14, 2020, and on August 20, 2020,
the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint.

The consolidated class action complaint alleges violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act,
in connection with allegedly false and misleading statements made
by the company related to IMbark during the period from March 19,
2018 to September 26, 2018.

The consolidated complaint alleges, among other things, that we
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule
10b-5 by failing to disclose facts related to the alleged failure
of IMbark to meet the two primary endpoints of the trial, spleen
response rate and Total Symptom Score, and that our stock price
dropped when such information was disclosed.

The plaintiffs in the consolidated class action complaint seek
damages and interest, and an award of reasonable costs, including
attorneys' fees.

On October 22, 2020, lead plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated
class action complaint. The company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended consolidated class action complaint on November 23, 2020.
The hearing on the motion to dismiss was held on February 8, 2021.

Geron Corporation is a biopharmaceutical company that currently
supports the clinical stage development of a telomerase inhibitor,
imetelstat, in hematologic myeloid malignancies, by Janssen
Biotech, Inc. The company is based in Foster, California.


GHOSTBED INC: Coffi Sues Over Unsolicited Automated Text Messages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FRANCES COFFI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GHOSTBED INC., Defendant, Case No.
CACE-21-00607 (Fla. 17th Jud. Cir. Ct., March 25, 2021) is a class
action complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant transmitted automated
marketing text messages to the Plaintiff's cellular telephone
number ending in 9119 beginning in January 2021 in an attempt to
advertise its mattress products. The Plaintiff's cellular telephone
number has been registered with the National Do Not Call Registry
since December 16, 2004. Additionally, the Plaintiff never provided
his express written consent to the Defendant to transmit automated
marketing text messages using an "automatic telephone dialing
system," which is demonstrated by the impersonal and generic nature
of the Defendant's text messages. Moreover, the Defendant allegedly
used the same messaging platform in transmitting thousands of
automated text messages, without any human involvement, to other
similarly situated individuals.

As a result of the Defendant's alleged unlawful conduct, the
Plaintiff and other members of the Putative Class were harmed.
Thus, the Plaintiff seeks an injunctive relief prohibiting the
Defendant from initiating calls to telephone numbers listed on the
NDNC Registry and from using an ATDS without obtaining consent from
the recipients to receive calls, and requiring the Defendant to
cease all unsolicited call activity. The Plaintiff also seeks an
actual and statutory damages, and other relief as the Court deems
necessary.

Ghostbed, Inc. is a company that sells mattress products. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ignacio Hiraldo, Esq.
          IJH LAW
          1200 Brickell Ave., Suite 1950
          Miami, FL 33131
          Tel: (786) 496-4469
          E-mail: IJhiraldo@IJHlaw.com

                - and –

          Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
          HIRALDO P.A.
          401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1400
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Tel: (954) 400-4713
          E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com


GLOBAL CREDIT: Lane Files Suit in New York Superior Court
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Global Credit &
Collection Corporation, et al. The case is styled as Karissa Lane,
on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Global
Credit & Collection Corporation and GCC Holdings, LLC, Case No.
612916/2019 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Suffolk Cty., April 5, 2021).

The case type is stated as "E-FILED CONTRACT CASE."

Global Credit & Collection Corporation --
http://www.globalcollection.net/-- is located in Chicago, IL,
United States and is part of the Collection Agencies Industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          MITCHELL L. PASHKIN, ESQ.
          775 PARK AVE, SUITE 255
          HUNTINGTON, NY 11743
          Phone: (631) 629-7709

The Defendant is represented by:

          SESSIONS, FISHMAN, NATHAN LLC
          THREE CROSS CREEK DRIVE
          FLEMINGTON, NJ 08822
          Phone: (908) 237-1660

GOHEALTH INC: Consolidated Putative Securities Class Suit Underway
------------------------------------------------------------------
GoHealth, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues to
defend a consolidated purported securities class action suit
entitled, In re GoHealth, Inc. Securities Litigation.

In September 2020, three purported securities class action
complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois against the Company, certain of its
officers and directors, and certain underwriters, private equity
firms, and investment vehicles alleging violations of the
Securities Act of 1933.

On December 10, 2020 the court in the earliest filed action
consolidated the three complaints, appointed lead plaintiffs and
lead counsel for the consolidated action, and captioned the
consolidated action In re GoHealth, Inc. Securities Litigation.

Lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on February 25,
2021. Defendants must file responsive pleadings by April 26, 2021.


The Company disputes each and every of plaintiffs' claims and
intends to defend the matter vigorously, including by moving to
dismiss the forthcoming consolidated complaint.

GoHealth, Inc. is a leading health insurance marketplace whose
mission is to improve access to healthcare in America. The
company's proprietary technology platform leverages modern
machine-learning algorithms powered by nearly two decades of
insurance behavioral data optimize the process for helping
individuals find the best health insurance plan for their specific
needs. The company is based in Chicago, Illinois.

GOODRX HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Terenzini & Kearney Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
GoodRx Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 12, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company is facing
class action suits initiated by  R. Brian Terenzini and Bryan
Kearney.

On December 18, 2020, R. Brian Terenzini, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a class action
lawsuit against the Company and certain of its executive officers
in the United States District Court for the Central District of
California (Case No. 2:20-cv-11444).

On January 8, 2021, Bryan Kearney, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, also filed a class action lawsuit
against the Company and certain of its executive officers in the
United States District Court for the Central District of California
(Case No. 2:21-cv-00175).

The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages as well as interest, fees
and costs.

The complaints allege violations of Section 10(b) of the 1934
Exchange Act and assert that the Company failed to disclose to
investors that Amazon.com, Inc. was developing its own mobile and
online prescription medication ordering and fulfillment service
that would compete directly with the Company.

According to the complaint, when Amazon announced its competitor
service, the Company's stock price fell, causing investor losses.


Lead plaintiff applications were due February 16, 2021. Once a lead
plaintiff is appointed, the Company intends to file a motion to
dismiss.  

The Company intends to vigorously defend against these claims.

The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims of
the plaintiff and members of the class and any liability for the
alleged claims is not currently probable and a loss or range of
loss, if any, is not reasonably estimable.

GoodRx Holdings, Inc. operates a digital healthcare platform. The
Company develops tele-medicine platform and a free-to-use website.
GoodRx Holdings serves customers in the United States. The company
is based in Santa Monica, California.


HALLMARK FINANCIAL: Bid to Nix Yalamanchili Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
Hallmark Financial Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 15,
2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the motion
to dismiss the putative class action suit headed by Rajeev
Yalamanchili, is pending.

On May 5, 2020, a lawsuit styled Schulze v. Hallmark Financial
Services, Inc., et al. (Case No. 3:20-cv-01130) was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas
Division.

The Company, its Chief Executive Officer and its former Chief
Financial Officer are named defendants in the lawsuit brought on
behalf of a putative class of shareholders who acquired Hallmark
securities between March 5, 2019 and March 17, 2020.

In general, the complaint alleges that the defendants violated the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by failing to disclose that (a) the
Company lacked effective internal controls over financial reporting
related to its reserves for unpaid losses, (b) the Company
improperly accounted for reserves for unpaid losses, (c) the
Company would be forced to report $63.8 million of prior year net
adverse loss development, (d) the Company would exit the contract
binding line of its commercial automobile primary insurance
business, and by making positive statements about the Company's
business, operations and prospects that were allegedly materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On July 21, 2020, the court appointed Rajeev Yalamanchili as Lead
Plaintiff. Lead Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on September
30, 2020.  

On December 4, 2020, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
lawsuit. The court has not yet ruled on that motion.

Hallmark said, "The litigation is in its initial stages. The
Company's current policy is to expense legal costs as incurred.
Historically, the Company has not carried director and officer
liability insurance and does not currently hold such a policy."

Hallmark Financial Services, Inc. engages primarily in sale of
property and casualty insurance products. The Company's business
involves marketing, underwriting and premium financing of
non-standard personal automobile insurance primarily in Texas,
Arizona and New Mexico, marketing of commercial insurance in Texas,
New Mexico, Idaho, Oregon and Washington, third party claims
administration, and other insurance-related services. The Company
is headquartered in Dallas, Texas.


HALLMARK UNIVERSITY: Hedges Files ADA Suit in New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hallmark University
Inc. The case is styled as Donna Hedges, on behalf of herself and
all other persons similarly situated v. Hallmark University Inc.,
Case No. 1:21-cv-02959 (S.D.N.Y., April 6, 2021).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

Hallmark University -- https://hallmarkuniversity.edu/ -- is a
mission driven, nonprofit university offering aeronautics,
business, healthcare, and information technology degrees.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 E. 18th Street, Suite Phr
          New York, NY 10003
          Phone: (212) 228-9795
          Email: michael@gottlieb.legal


HARDWARE AND TOOLS: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hardware And Tools
Corp. The case is styled as Lawrence Young, on behalf of himself
and all other persons similarly situated v. Hardware And Tools
Corp., Case No. 1:21-cv-02869 (S.D.N.Y., April 3, 2021).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

Hardware & Tools Corporation -- https://www.hardwareandtools.com/
-- operates as an online hardware store. The Company offers
automotive accessories, electrical lighting, hand and power tools,
hardware and building materials, heating, cooling, hearth and
venting, organization cleaning, as well as lawn, garden, pet
products, plumbing, paint and decor.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Phone: (212) 228-9795
          Email: michael@gottlieb.legal


HARVEST CAPITAL: Facing Portman Ridge Finance Merger Related Suits
------------------------------------------------------------------
Harvest Capital Credit Corporation said in its Form 10-K report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 12,
2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company
is facing putative class action suits related to its merger with
Portman Ridge Finance Corporation, a Delaware corporation
("PTMN').

On December 23, 2020, the company entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger with PTMN, Rye Acquisition Sub Inc., a Delaware
corporation and a direct wholly-owned subsidiary of PTMN, and
Sierra Crest Investment Management LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company and the external investment adviser to PTMN. The
Merger Agreement provides that (i) Acquisition Sub will merge with
and into the Company, with the Company continuing as the surviving
corporation and as a wholly-owned subsidiary of PTMN, and (ii)
immediately after the effectiveness of the First Merger, we will
merge with and into PTMN, with PTMN continuing as the surviving
corporation. Sierra Crest is expected to manage the combined
company following the Mergers.

The transaction is the result of a review of strategic alternatives
by our board of directors and a special committee thereof comprised
solely of the independent directors of our board of directors. Our
board of directors (other than directors affiliated with HCAP
Advisors, who abstained from voting), on the unanimous
recommendation of the HCAP Special Committee, has approved the
Merger Agreement and the transactions contemplated thereby. The
boards of directors of each of PTMN and Acquisition Sub, and the
managing member of Sierra Crest, have also each unanimously
approved the Merger Agreement and the transactions contemplated
thereby.

The Company and certain of its officer and directors as well as JMP
Group have been named as defendants in two putative stockholder
class action lawsuits, both filed in the Court of Chancery in the
State of Delaware, captioned Stewart Thompson v. Joseph Jolson, et
al., Case No. 2021-0164 and Ronald Tornese v. Joseph Jolson, et
al., Case No. 2021-0167.

In addition, the Company and certain of its officer and directors,
among others, have been named as defendants in a stockholder
action, filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York,
captioned Greg Ramanauskas v. Harvest Capital Credit Corp, et al.

On February 25, 2021, two putative stockholders, each purporting to
act on behalf of himself and the Company's common stockholders,
filed substantially identical verified class action complaints in
the Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware.

The complaints in the Delaware Actions allege certain breaches of
fiduciary duties against the defendants as well as aiding and
abetting claims against JMP Group and the Company's Chief Executive
Officer concerning the Company's proposed merger with PTMN and
Acquisition Sub. On March 5, 2021, a putative stockholder filed a
similar complaint in the Supreme Court of the State of New York,
alleging certain breaches of fiduciary duties against the
individual defendants and aiding and abetting claims against the
Company, PTMN, Acquisition Sub, and Sierra Crest.

The complaints generally allege that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed merger and caused
to be filed with the SEC an allegedly materially incomplete and
misleading registration statement on Form N-14 relating to the
proposed merger. The plaintiffs in the Litigations ask the court to
enjoin the proposed merger, and award attorneys' fees and costs,
among other relief.

Further, the plaintiffs in the Delaware Actions ask the court to
direct the defendants to account to plaintiffs and the putative
class for all damages suffered as a result of the alleged
wrongdoing.

The Litigations remain at an early stage.

Harvest Capital said, "The Company intends to defend itself
vigorously against the allegations in the aforementioned actions.
Neither the outcome of the lawsuits nor an estimate of any
reasonably possible losses is determinable at this time. An adverse
judgment for monetary damages could have a material adverse effect
on the Company's operations and liquidity or that of any combined
company. There can be no assurances that additional complaints or
demands will not be filed or made with respect to the proposed
Mergers. If additional similar complaints or demands are filed or
made, absent new or different allegations that are material, the
Company may not necessarily announce them."

Harvest Capital Credit Corporation is an externally managed,
closed-end, non-diversified management investment company that has
elected to be regulated as a business development company, or
"BDC", under the Investment Company Act of 1940, or the 1940 Act.
The company is based in New York, New York.


HELIX ENERGY: Wade Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------
GLENN ALAN WADE, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. HELIX ENERGY SOLUTIONS GROUP, INC. & HELIX WELL OPS INC., Case
No. 4:21-cv-00851 (S.D. Tex., March 15, 2021) sues Helix for unpaid
overtime under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and seeks to
represent a collective action group of similarly situated
individuals.

The Plaintiff worked an HVAC Technician for Helix. Helix paid
Plaintiff and similarly situated HVAC Technicians a day rate for
their work, and did not pay them overtime, even though Plaintiff
and similarly situated HVAC Technicians routinely worked overtime,
says the suit.

Helix is a Minnesota corporation operating in Texas with its
Corporate Headquarters at 3505 W Sam Houston Pkwy N, Suite 400,
Houston, Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edwin Sullivan, Esq.
          Mark J. Oberti, Esq.
          OBERTI SULLIVAN LLP
          712 Main Street, Suite 900
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 401-3557
          Facsimile: (713) 401-3547
          E-mail: ed@osattorneys.com
                  mark@osattorneys.com

HF FOODS: Bid to Junk Yee Headed Putative Class Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
HF Foods Group Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the motion to dismiss the
consolidated putative class action suit headed by Yun F. Yee, is
pending.

On March 29, 2020, plaintiff Jesus Mendoza filed a putative
shareholder securities class action lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California against the
Company and certain of its present and former officers for alleged
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 styled Mendoza v. HF Foods Group Inc., et al., Civil
Action No. 2:20-CV-2929-ODW-JPR (C.D. Cal.).

On April 30, 2020, plaintiff Walter Ponce-Sanchez filed a
substantially similar putative shareholder securities class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California against the same defendants named in the
Class Action Lawsuit styled Ponce-Sanchez v. HF Foods Group Inc.,
et al., Civil Action No. 2:20-CV-3967-ODW-JPR (C.D. Cal.).

The Ponce-Sanchez Lawsuit has now been consolidated with the Class
Action Lawsuit and both cases will proceed under the Class Action
Lawsuit docket.

The complaints both allege that the Defendants made materially
false and or misleading statements that caused losses to investors.
Additionally, the complaints both allege that the Defendants failed
to disclose in public statements that the Company engaged in
certain related party transactions, that insiders and related
parties were enriching themselves by misusing shareholder funds,
and that the Company masked the true number of free-floating
shares.

Neither complaint quantifies any alleged damages, but, in addition
to attorneys' fees and costs, they seek to recover damages on
behalf of themselves and other persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired Company stock during the putative class period from August
23, 2018 through March 23, 2020 at allegedly inflated prices and
purportedly suffered financial harm as a result.

On October 13, 2020, the Court appointed Yun F. Yee as lead
plaintiff and approved Mr. Yee's counsel as lead counsel in the
consolidated Class Action Lawsuit.

On October 28, 2020, the Court entered a scheduling order setting
December 4, 2020 as the deadline for lead plaintiff to file the
Consolidated Amended Complaint and setting a schedule for
Defendants' anticipated motion to dismiss. Thereafter, an amended
complaint was filed, which purports to expand the putative class
period from August 23, 2018 to November 9, 2020.

The Defendants filed their motion to dismiss the amended complaint
on January 19, 2021, which is pending. The Class Action Lawsuit
does not quantify any alleged damages.

The Company intends to defend the consolidated Class Action Lawsuit
vigorously.

HF Foods Group Inc. markets and distributes fresh produces, frozen
and dry food, and non-food products to primarily Asian restaurants
and other foodservice customers throughout the Southeast, Pacific
and Mountain West regions region of the United States. The company
is based in City of Industry, California.


HF FOODS: Employment Class Suit vs. Happy FM Underway
-----------------------------------------------------
HF Foods Group Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the purported class
action labor and employment suit initiated against Happy FM Group,
Inc., a company subsidiary, is ongoing.

On October 19, 2020, a purported class action labor and employment
lawsuit was filed by a former employee against Happy FM Group,
Inc., alleging it failed to provide minimum wages and overtime
wages, proper meal and rest breaks, as well as other related
violations.

HF Foods said, "We believe there is no merit to the case and are
vigorously defending against all the allegations. Therefore, the
Company did not accrue any loss contingency for these matters on
its consolidated financial statements as of December 31, 2020."

HF Foods Group Inc. markets and distributes fresh produces, frozen
and dry food, and non-food products to primarily Asian restaurants
and other foodservice customers throughout the Southeast, Pacific
and Mountain West regions region of the United States. The company
is based in City of Industry, California.


HONEYBEE GARDENS: Quezada Says Website Inaccessible to Blind Users
------------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE QUEZADA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HONEYBEE GARDENS INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:21-cv-02581-AT (S.D.N.Y., March 25, 2021) is a class action
complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged violations
of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff is a blind, visually-impaired handicapped person and
a member of member of a protected class of individuals under the
ADA and the regulations implementing the ADA.

The Plaintiff claims that during his most recent visit to the
Defendant's Website, www.honeybeegardens.com, in March 2021 to
browse and potentially make a purchase, he has encountered multiple
access barriers which denied him a user experience similar to that
of a sighted individual. The Website allegedly lacked of a variety
of features and accommodations, which effectively barred him from
being able to enjoy the privileges and benefits of the Defendant's
public accommodations offered on its Website.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has engaged in acts of
intentional discrimination as a result of its failure to comply
with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.1, which would
provide the Plaintiff and other visually-impaired consumers with
equal access to the Website. Moreover, the Defendant has failed to
take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy their discriminatory
conduct.

On behalf of himself and on behalf other similarly situated
visually-impaired consumers, the Plaintiff seeks a preliminary and
permanent injunction prohibiting the Defendant from violating the
ADA and requiring the Defendant to take all the steps necessary to
make its Website into full compliance with the requirements set
forth in the ADA. The Plaintiff also demands for compensatory
damages from the Defendants, including statutory and punitive
damages and fines, as well as pre- and post-judgment interest,
litigation costs and expenses together with reasonable attorneys'
and expert fees, and other relief as the Court deems just and
proper.

Honeybee Gardens Inc. is a bath and body care products
manufacturing company that owns and operates the Website. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          MARS KHAIMOV LAW, PLLC
          10826 64th Avenue, Second Floor
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Tel: (929) 324-0717
          E-mail: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com


HUNTER DOUGLAS: Gillison Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DAVINA GILLISON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HUNTER DOUGLAS FABRICATION COMPANY,
Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-00389-WCG (E.D. Wis., March 29, 2021)
is a collective and class action complaint brought against the
Defendant for its alleged unlawful pay policies and practices in
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Wisconsin's Wage
Payment and Collection Laws.

The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant in approximately February
2017 as an hourly-paid, non-exempt employee in the position of
Inspector in the Defendant's "Flexo Solutions Division".

The Plaintiff alleges that despite she regularly worked more than
40 hours per week, the Defendant failed to correctly pay her
overtime compensation at the lawful overtime rate or at the rate of
one and one-half times her regular rate of pay for all hours she
worked in excess of 40 in a workweek. This is due to the
Defendant's alleged failure to include all forms of
non-discretionary compensation, such as monetary bonuses, shift
differentials, incentives, awards, and/or other rewards and
payments, in her regular rate of pay for overtime computation
purposes.

The Plaintiff brings this complaint on behalf of herself and other
similarly situated workers seeking to recover damages from the
Defendant in the amount of their respective unpaid overtime
compensation, as well as an injunctive relief requiring the
Defendant to cease and desist from its unlawful conduct, and other
legal and equitable relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Hunter Douglas Fabrication is a fabrication company headquartered
primarily in the States of California and New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James A. Walcheske, Esq.
          Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
          David M. Potteiger, Esq.
          WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
          235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240
          Brookfield, WI 53005
          Tel: (262) 780-1953
          Fax: (262) 565-6469
          E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
                  sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
                  dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com


HUNTERS POINT: Fimbres Files Suit in California Superior Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hunters Point Family,
et al. The case is styled as Cathy Fimbres, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Hunters Point Family a
California Corporation, Does 1-20, inclusive, Case No. CGC21590676
(Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., April 7, 2021).

The case type is stated as "OTHER NON EXEMPT COMPLAINTS."

The Hunters Point Family (HPF) --
https://www.hunterspointfamily.org/ -- was founded in 1997 to
provide support services to African American youth and families
living in San Francisco's Bayview Hunters Point community.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ronald W. Makarem, Esq.
          MAKAREM & ASSOCIATES
          11601 Wilshire Blvd #2440
          Los Angeles, CA 90025-1760
          Phone: (310) 312-0299
          Fax: (310) 312-0296
          Email: makarem@law-rm.com


HYUNDAI MOTOR: Cars Have Engine Defect, Thornhill Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
NICOLE THORNHILL, JANET O'BRIEN, and DAVID SHAPIRO, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HYUNDAI MOTOR
COMPANY, HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, KIA MOTORS CORPORATION, and KIA
MOTORS AMERICA, INC., Case No. 8:21-cv-00481 (C.D. Calif., March
12, 2021) alleges that Hyundai and Kia breached the fundamental
duties of a car manufacturer that is to provide consumers with a
safe car.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants failed to warn consumers
and fix a car where the manufacturer learns of a vehicle defect
that implicates serious safety issues.

Certain Hyundai and Kia vehicles equipped with gasoline direct
injection ("GDI") and multipoint fuel injections ("MPI") engines
("Class Vehicles") contain an engine defect that presents consumers
with an unacceptable risk of engine failure and spontaneous engine
fire while driving.

The Plaintiffs contend Hyundai and Kia knew before selling the
Class Vehicles that their engines were defective, prone to
premature and catastrophic failure, and posed an unreasonable risk
of non-collision engine failures and fires. A design and/or
manufacturing defect exists in the Class Vehicles that causes the
engine's moving parts, such as connecting rod bearings, to
prematurely wear to the point that the engine parts seize, which
stops engine operation while running (the "Engine Defect"), the
Plaintiffs add.

The Engine Defect exposes putative class members to an unreasonable
and increased risk of accident, injury, or death should their
vehicle’s engine fail while in operation, let alone spontaneously
ignite, the suit contends.

The Plaintiffs bring this action to redress Hyundai and Kia's
misconduct seeking recovery of damages and a repair under state
consumer-protection statutes and implied warranties, and
reimbursement of all expenses associated with the repair or
replacement of the Class Vehicle.

Hyundai Motor Company, commonly known as Hyundai, is a South Korean
multinational automotive manufacturer headquartered in Seoul. Kia
is a South Korean multinational automotive manufacturer
headquartered in Seoul.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          Christopher R. Pitoun, Esq.
          Rachel E. Fitzpatrick, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          301 N. Lake Avenue, Suite 920
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Telephone: (213) 330-7150
          Facsimile: (213) 330-7152
          E-mail: christopherp@hbsslaw.com
                  steve@hbsslaw.com
                  rachelf@hbsslaw.com

IDT CORP: Discovery Ongoing in JDS1 LLC Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
IDT Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 15, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended January 31, 2021, that discovery is ongoing
in the class action suit initiated by JDS1, LLC.

On July 5, 2017, plaintiff JDS1, LLC, on behalf of itself and all
other similarly situated stockholders of Straight Path, and
derivatively on behalf of Straight Path as nominal defendant, filed
a putative class action and derivative complaint in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware against the Company, The Patrick
Henry Trust (a trust formed by Howard S. Jonas that held record and
beneficial ownership of certain shares of Straight Path he formerly
held), Howard S. Jonas, and each of Straight Path's directors.

The complaint alleges that the Company aided and abetted Straight
Path Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer Davidi
Jonas, and Howard S. Jonas in his capacity as controlling
stockholder of Straight Path, in breaching their fiduciary duties
to Straight Path in connection with the settlement of claims
between Straight Path and the Company related to potential
indemnification claims concerning Straight Path's obligations under
the Consent Decree it entered into with the Federal Communications
Commission ("FCC"), as well as the sale of Straight Path's
subsidiary Straight Path IP Group, Inc. to the Company in
connection with that settlement.

That action was consolidated with a similar action that was
initiated by The Arbitrage Fund.

The Plaintiffs are seeking, among other things, (i) a declaration
that the action may be maintained as a class action or in the
alternative, that demand on the Straight Path Board is excused;
(ii) that the term sheet is invalid; (iii) awarding damages for the
unfair price stockholders received in the merger between Straight
Path and Verizon Communications Inc. for their shares of Straight
Path's Class B common stock; and (iv) ordering Howard S. Jonas,
Davidi Jonas, and the Company to disgorge any profits for the
benefit of the class Plaintiffs.

On August 28, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On
September 24, 2017, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint, which was ultimately denied, and which denial
was affirmed by the Delaware Supreme Court. The parties are engaged
in discovery.

The trial is currently scheduled for December 6, 2021.

The Company intends to vigorously defend this matter (see Note 10).
At this stage, the Company is unable to estimate its potential
liability, if any.

IDT Corporation operates primarily in the telecommunications and
payment industries in the United States and internationally. The
company operates in two segments, Telecom & Payment Services, and
net2phone-Unified Communications as a Service. IDT was founded in
1990 and is headquartered in Newark, New Jersey.


IDT CORP: Rosales Settlement Agreement Awaits Court Approval
------------------------------------------------------------
IDT Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 15, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended January 31, 2021, that the parties in the
putative class action suit initiated by Jose Rosales are now
seeking court approval of a settlement agreement.

On January 22, 2019, Jose Rosales filed a putative class action
against IDT America, IDT Domestic Telecom and IDT International in
California state court alleging certain violations of employment
law.

Plaintiff alleges that these companies failed to compensate members
of the putative class in accordance with California law.

In August 2019, the Company filed a cross complaint against Rosales
alleging trade secret and other violations.

The parties are now seeking court approval of a settlement
agreement.

IDT Corporation operates primarily in the telecommunications and
payment industries in the United States and internationally. The
company operates in two segments, Telecom & Payment Services, and
net2phone-Unified Communications as a Service. IDT was founded in
1990 and is headquartered in Newark, New Jersey.


IMPAC MORTGAGE: Appeal in Timm Class Suit Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------
Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 12, 2021,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the appeal in the
purported class action suit entitled, Timm, v. Impac Mortgage
Holdings, Inc, et al., is ongoing.

On December 7, 2011, a purported class action was filed in the
Circuit Court of Baltimore City entitled Timm v. Impac Mortgage
Holdings, Inc., et al. alleging on behalf of holders of the
Company's 9.375% Series B Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock
(Preferred B) and 9.125% Series C Cumulative Redeemable Preferred
Stock (Preferred C) who did not tender their stock in connection
with the Company's 2009 completion of its Offer to Purchase and
Consent Solicitation that the Company failed to achieve the
required consent of the Preferred B and C holders, the consents to
amend the Preferred stock were not effective because they were
given on unissued stock (after redemption), the Company tied the
tender offer with a consent requirement that constituted an
improper "vote buying" scheme, and that the tender offer was a
breach of a fiduciary duty.

The action seeks the payment of two quarterly dividends for the
Preferred B and C holders, the unwinding of the consents and
reinstatement of the cumulative dividend on the Preferred B and C
stock, and the election of two directors by the Preferred B and C
holders. The action also seeks punitive damages and legal expenses.


On July 16, 2018, the Circuit Court entered a Judgement Order
whereby it (1) declared and entered judgment in favor of all
defendants on all claims related to the Preferred C holders and all
claims against all individual defendants thereby affirming the
validity of the 2009 amendments to the Preferred C Articles
Supplementary; (2) declared its interpretation of the voting
provision language in the Preferred B Articles Supplementary to
mean that consent of two-thirds of the Preferred B stockholders was
required to approve the 2009 amendments to the Preferred B Articles
Supplementary, which consent was not obtained, thus rendering the
amendments invalid and leaving the 2004 Preferred B Articles
Supplementary in effect; (3) ordered the Company to hold a special
election within sixty days for the Preferred B stockholders to
elect two directors to the Board of Directors pursuant to the 2004
Preferred B Articles Supplementary (which Directors will remain on
the Company's Board of Directors until such time as all accumulated
dividends on the Preferred B have been paid or set aside for
payment); and (4) declared that the Company is required to pay
three quarters of dividends on the Preferred B stock under the 2004
Preferred B Articles Supplementary (approximately, $1.2 million,
but did not order the Company to make any payment at this time).

The Circuit Court declined to certify any class pending the outcome
of appeals and certified its Judgment Order for immediate appeal.
On October 2, 2019, the Court of Special Appeals held oral argument
for all appeals in the matter.

On February 5, 2020, the Court of Special Appeals requested that
the parties provide a supplemental memorandum explaining the
appealability of the original Circuit Court opinion which the
Company responded to on February 21, 2020.

On April 1, 2020, the Court of Special Appeals issued an opinion
affirming the judgment in favor of plaintiffs on the Series B
voting rights arguing that the voting rights provision was not
ambiguous. In response, the Company filed a petition for a writ of
certiorari to the Maryland Court of Appeals appealing the Court of
Special Appeals opinion.

The Maryland Court of Appeals granted the writ of certiorari on
July 13, 2020, agreeing to hear the Company's appeal.

All parties submitted their briefs and oral argument was held on
December 4, 2020. There is no set timeframe for the court to issue
its ruling.

Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. operates as an independent
residential mortgage lender in the United States. It operates
through three segments: Mortgage Lending, Real Estate Services, and
Long-Term Mortgage Portfolio. Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. was
founded in 1995 and is headquartered in Irvine, California.


IMPAC MORTGAGE: Arbitration in Nguyen Suit Set for October 25
-------------------------------------------------------------
Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 12, 2021,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that an arbitration
hearing has been scheduled for October 25, 2021 in the Tam Nguyen
case.

On April 20, 2017, a purported class action was filed in the United
States District Court, Central District of California, entitled
Nguyen v. Impac Mortgage Corp. dba CashCall Mortgage et al.

The plaintiffs contend the defendants did not pay purported class
members overtime compensation or provide meal and rest breaks, as
required by law. The action seeks to invalidate any waiver signed
by a purported class member of their right to bring a class action
and seeks damages, restitution, penalties, attorney's fees,
interest, and an injunction against unfair, deceptive, and unlawful
activities.  

On August 23, 2018, the court (1) granted the defendants motion to
compel arbitration as to all claims, except for the plaintiffs'
claims under California's Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act
(PAGA); (2) ordered the plaintiffs to submit their claims (other
than PAGA claims) to arbitration on an individual, non-class,
non-collective, and non-representative basis; (3) dismissed all
class and collective claims with prejudice to the plaintiffs and
without prejudice to putative class members; and (4) stayed all
claims that were compelled to arbitration, as well as the PAGA
claims.

Plaintiffs Jason Nguyen and Tam Nguyen each submitted their
respective demands for individual arbitration to the American
Arbitration Association. An arbitration hearing has not yet been
set in the Jason Nguyen case.  

An arbitration hearing has been scheduled for October 25, 2021 in
the Tam Nguyen case.  

Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. operates as an independent
residential mortgage lender in the United States. It operates
through three segments: Mortgage Lending, Real Estate Services, and
Long-Term Mortgage Portfolio. Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. was
founded in 1995 and is headquartered in Irvine, California.


IMPAC MORTGAGE: Court Junks Marentes' Request to Review Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 12, 2021,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the Petition for
Review with the Supreme Court of California in the purported class
action suit entitled, Marentes v. Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc., is
has been denied.

On April 30, 2012, a purported class action was filed in California
entitled Marentes v. Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc., alleging that
certain loan modification activities of the Company constitute an
unfair business practice, false advertising and marketing, and that
the fees charged are improper.

The complaint seeks unspecified damages, restitution, injunctive
relief, attorney's fees and prejudgment interest.

On August 22, 2012, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
adding Impac Funding Corporation as a defendant and on October 2,
2012, the plaintiffs dismissed Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc.,
without prejudice.

On January 11, 2019, the trial court determined that the plaintiffs
were unable to prove their case and ordered that judgment be
entered in favor of the defendant. On April 19, 2019, the
plaintiffs filed their Notice of Appeal and the plaintiffs filed
their opening brief on October 31, 2019. The Company filed its
response on February 19, 2020.

On September 11, 2020, the Court of Appeal of the State of
California affirmed the trial court's judgment in favor of the
Company. On October 21, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a Petition for
Review with the Supreme Court of California.

On December 16, 2020, the Supreme Court of California denied
Marentes' petition.

Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. operates as an independent
residential mortgage lender in the United States. It operates
through three segments: Mortgage Lending, Real Estate Services, and
Long-Term Mortgage Portfolio. Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. was
founded in 1995 and is headquartered in Irvine, California.

IMPAC MORTGAGE: Trial in McNair-Batres Class Suit Set for July 12
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 12, 2021,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that trial date in the
consolidated McNair v. Impac Mortgage Corp. dba CashCall Mortgage
and Batres v. Impac Mortgage Corp. dba CashCall Mortgage, is
scheduled on July 12, 2021.  

On September 18, 2018, a purported class action was filed in the
Superior Court of California, Orange County, entitled McNair v.
Impac Mortgage Corp. dba CashCall Mortgage.

The plaintiff contends the defendant did not pay the plaintiff and
purported class members overtime compensation, provide required
meal and rest breaks, or provide accurate wage statements. The
action seeks damages, restitution, penalties, interest, attorney's
fees, and all other appropriate injunctive, declaratory, and
equitable relief.

On March 8, 2019, a First Amended Complaint was filed, which added
a claim alleging PAGA violations. On March 12, 2019, the parties
filed a stipulation with the court stating (1) the plaintiff's
individual claims should be arbitrated pursuant to the parties'
arbitration agreement, (2) the class claims should be struck from
the First Amended Complaint, and (3) the plaintiff will proceed
solely with regard to her PAGA claims.

This case was consolidated with the Batres v. Impac Mortgage Corp.
dba CashCall Mortgage case with a rescheduled trial date of July
12, 2021.  

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. operates as an independent
residential mortgage lender in the United States. It operates
through three segments: Mortgage Lending, Real Estate Services, and
Long-Term Mortgage Portfolio. Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. was
founded in 1995 and is headquartered in Irvine, California.


ING GROEP: Continues to Defend Mexican Gov't Bond Price Fixing Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ING Groep N.V. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 12, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues to
defend a class action lawsuit related to Mexican Government Bond
price fixing.

A class action complaint was filed adding ING Bank N.V., ING Groep
N.V.,ING Bank Mexico S.A. and ING Financial Markets LLC ("ING") as
defendants to a complaint that had previously been filed against
multiple other financial institutions.

The complaint alleges that the defendants conspired to fix the
prices of Mexican Government Bonds. ING is defending itself against
the allegations.

Currently, it is not possible to provide an estimate of the
(potential) financial effect of this claim.

On 30 September 2019, the relevant court dismissed the antitrust
complaint, finding that the plaintiffs had failed to identify any
facts that links each defendant to the alleged conspiracy.

On 9 December 2019, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
removing all ING entities as defendants on the condition that the
ING entities enter into a tolling agreement for the duration of two
years.

The relevant ING entities subsequently entered into a tolling
agreement, which provides that the statute of limitations will not
be tolled for the two-year duration of the agreement.

Should the plaintiffs discover any evidence of potential
involvement by ING in the activities alleged in the complaint, ING
could be brought back into the litigation.

ING Groep N.V., a financial institution, provides various banking
products and services to individuals, small and medium-sized
enterprises, and mid-corporates. It operates in Retail Netherlands,
Retail Belgium, Retail Germany, Retail Other, and Wholesale Banking
segments. The company operates in the Netherlands, Belgium, North
America, Latin America, Asia, Australia, and rest of Europe. ING
Groep N.V. was founded in 1991 and is headquartered in Amsterdam,
the Netherlands.


ING GROEP: Dismissal of SIBOR and SOR Related Suit Under Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
ING Groep N.V. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 12, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the appeal in the class
action suit related to Singapore Interbank Offer Rate ("SIBOR") and
the Singapore Swap Offer Rate ("SOR"), is pending.

In July 2016, investors in derivatives tied to SIBORfiled a U.S.
class action complaint in the New York District Court alleging that
several banks, including ING,conspired to rig the prices of
derivatives tied to SIBOR and SOR.

The lawsuit refers to investigations by the Monetary Authority of
Singapore ("MAS") and other regulators, including the U.S.
Commodity Futures Trading Commission ("CFTC"), in relation to
rigging prices of SIBOR- and SOR based derivatives.

In October 2018, the New York District Court issued a decision
dismissing all claims against ING Group and ING Capital Markets
LLC, but leaving ING Bank, together with several other banks, in
the case, and directing plaintiffs to file an amended complaint
consistent with the Court's rulings.

In October 2018, plaintiffs filed such amended complaint, which
asserts claims against a number of defendants but none against ING
Bank(or any other ING entity), effectively dismissing ING Bank from
the case.

In December 2018, plaintiffs sought permission from the Court to
file a further amended complaint that names ING Bank as a
defendant.

In July 2019, the New York District Court granted the defendants'
motion to dismiss and denied leave to further amend the complaint,
effectively dismissing all remaining claims against ING Bank.

In November 2019, plaintiffs filed an appeal against this
judgment.

ING Groep N.V., a financial institution, provides various banking
products and services to individuals, small and medium-sized
enterprises, and mid-corporates. It operates in Retail Netherlands,
Retail Belgium, Retail Germany, Retail Other, and Wholesale Banking
segments. The company operates in the Netherlands, Belgium, North
America, Latin America, Asia, Australia, and rest of Europe. ING
Groep N.V. was founded in 1991 and is headquartered in Amsterdam,
the Netherlands.

ING GROEP: Spain Unit Still Defends Mortgage Expenses Claims Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ING Groep N.V. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 12, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that  ING Spain continues to
defend a class action lawsuit related to mortgage expenses claims.

ING Spain has received claims and is involved in procedures with
customers regarding reimbursement of expenses associated with the
formalization of mortgages.

In most court proceedings in first instance the expense clause of
the relevant mortgage contract has been declared null and ING Spain
has been ordered to reimburse all or part of the applicable
expenses. The courts in first instance have applied in their
rulings different criteria regarding the reimbursement of expenses.


A provision has been taken and ING Spain has filed an appeal
against a number of these court decisions. Since 2018, the Spanish
Supreme Court and the European Court of Justice have issued rulings
setting out which party should bear notary, registration, agency,
and stamp duty costs.

In January 2021, the Spanish Supreme Court ruled that valuation
costs of mortgages, signed prior to June 16, 2019, the date the new
mortgage law entered into force, should be borne by the bank.

The impact on ING was analyzed and the provision mentioned above
was adjusted. ING Spain has also been included, together with other
Spanish banks, in three class actions filed by customer
associations.

In one of the class actions an agreement was reached with the
association.

In another class action ING filed an appeal asking the Spanish
Court of Appeal to determine that the ruling of the court of first
instance is only applicable to the consumers that were part of the
case.

ING Groep N.V., a financial institution, provides various banking
products and services to individuals, small and medium-sized
enterprises, and mid-corporates. It operates in Retail Netherlands,
Retail Belgium, Retail Germany, Retail Other, and Wholesale Banking
segments. The company operates in the Netherlands, Belgium, North
America, Latin America, Asia, Australia, and rest of Europe. ING
Groep N.V. was founded in 1991 and is headquartered in Amsterdam,
the Netherlands.

INTRICON CORP: Hoffman Putative Class Suit Stayed
-------------------------------------------------
Intricon Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the putative class action
suit initiated by Mark Hoffman, is stayed.

On October 9, 2019, plaintiff Mark Hoffman filed a putative class
action lawsuit against defendant Hearing Help Express, Inc.
("HHE"), a subsidiary of the Company, in the Federal District Court
for the Western District of Washington based on specific provisions
of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA").  

HHE's investigation revealed third-party lead generator Triangular
Media Corp. provided Hoffman's information to HHE only after he
participated in Triangular's interactive telephonic screening
process.

Hoffman claims he did not provide the requisite prior express
written consent for auto-dialed telemarketing calls regarding
hearing aids to be placed to his cellphone. He also claims he did
not provide the requisite permission for telemarketing calls to his
number registered on the Do-Not-Call ("DNC") registry.

Since the initial complaint was filed, Hoffman has amended his
complaint several times to add additional parties, including
Triangular, Triangular's alleged owner, an alleged entity related
to Triangular called LeadCreations.Com, LLC, Intricon, Inc., and
Intricon Corporation.

With respect to HHE, Hoffman seeks to certify a class of certain
automated outbound telemarketing calls HHE allegedly made without
prior consent, or to those numbers on the DNC registry, in the last
four years. Hoffman also seeks to hold the Company vicariously
liable for all of the calls HHE made without prior consent.

The potential exposure under the TCPA is $500 per call, or $1,500
per call if the violation is deemed willful or knowing. The parties
were engaged in discovery.

However, the case is now stayed pending the United States Supreme
Court's ruling in another TCPA case – Duguid v. Facebook, No.
19-51 (argued Dec. 8, 2020) given the impact the Duguid opinion
could have on this case. A ruling by the United States Supreme
Court is expected this summer.

The Company believes that HHE has strong legal and factual defenses
in this proceeding. HHE and the Company intend to continue
defending themselves vigorously in the pending lawsuit.

Intricon said, "While the Company is unable to predict the outcome
of this proceeding, the Company believes that the ultimate outcome
of this matter will not have a material adverse effect on the
Company's consolidated financial position, liquidity or results of
operations."

Intricon Corporation (together with its subsidiaries is an
international company and joint development manufacturer ("JDM") of
micromedical components, sub-assemblies and final devices. The
Company serves as a JDM partner to leading medical device original
equipment manufacturers ("OEMs") by designing, developing,
engineering, manufacturing, packaging and distributing micromedical
products for high growth markets, such as diabetes, peripheral
vascular, interventional pulmonology, electrophysiology and hearing
healthcare. The company is based in Arden Hills, Minnesota.


ISS FACILITY: 9th Cir. Affirms Denial of Arbitration in Garcia Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CLAUDIA GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee v. ISS FACILITY
SERVICES, INC., a Delaware corporation; ISS FACILITY SERVICES
CALIFORNIA, INC., a Delaware Corporation; BROADRIDGE FINANCIAL
SOLUTIONS, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Defendants-Appellants,
Case No. 20-15633 (9th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's order denying the
Defendants' motion to compel arbitration.

The Defendants appeal the district court's order denying their
motion to compel arbitration of a putative wage-and-hour class
action brought by Claudia Garcia.  The district court determined
that the parties' agreement to mediate all disputes ("Mediation
Agreement") was fully integrated and superseded the parties' prior
agreement to arbitrate disputes ("Arbitration Agreement").

The Ninth Circuit finds that the language of both the Mediation
Agreement and the prior Arbitration Agreement demonstrate that the
parties intended the Mediation Agreement to be their exclusive
agreement regarding dispute resolution.  The language of the
integration clause provides strong support for integration.

The Ninth Circuit states that the Mediation Agreement is "the full
and complete agreement relating to the resolution of disputes
covered by this Agreement."  The "disputes covered by the Mediation
Agreement" are explicitly defined in paragraphs 1 and 2 of that
Agreement.  And the disputes covered by the Mediation Agreement --
"any dispute, past, present or future, that EMPLOYER may have
against Employee or that Employee may have against: (1) Employer"
or specified related entities for "any claims arising out of or
related to Employee's employment or separation of employment" --
are identical to the disputes that had been covered by the
Arbitration Agreement.

The Defendants contend that "covered by this agreement" modifies
"resolution" rather than "disputes."

The Ninth Circuit holds that cannot be.  As a matter of grammar,
"qualifying words or phrases modify the words or phrases
immediately preceding them and not words or phrases more remote,
unless the extension is necessary from the context or the spirit of
the entire writing."  Beyond the integration clause, nothing in
either Agreement requires the conclusion that the Arbitration
Agreement was intended to survive the effective date of the
Mediation Agreement.  In many sections, the Mediation Agreement
repeats the text of the Arbitration Agreement verbatim,
substituting the word "mediation" for "arbitration," further
supporting the conclusion that the parties intended the later
agreement to supersede the earlier.  The district court therefore
did not err in determining that the Mediation Agreement is
completely integrated as to dispute resolution between the parties
and supersedes the Arbitration Agreement.

For the first time on appeal, the Defendants argue that the
district court erred by failing to analyze the Mediation Agreement
as a novation.

Although the Defendants contend that the question whether district
court should have applied a novation analysis is purely a matter of
law, the Ninth Circuit finds that they point to no statute or case
law requiring a later, integrated agreement to be analyzed under
the standards applicable to determining whether the parties
intended to enter into a novation.  To the extent applying those
standards would lead to a different result than determining whether
the second agreement is fully integrated as to the subject matter
covered, it holds that the Defendants did not sufficiently raise
this argument in the district court, and will not address it for
the first time on appeal.

The Defendants also argue for the first time on appeal that the
gateway issue of arbitrability should have been decided by an
arbitrator, not the district court, under the delegation clause in
the Arbitration Agreement.  They contend that Rent-A-Center, West,
Inc. v. Jackson, 561 U.S. 63 (2010), required Garcia to "challenge
the delegation provision specifically," in the district court and
by not doing so, she left "any challenge to the validity of the
Arbitration Agreement as a whole for the arbitrator."  
But unlike the defendant in Rent-A-Center, the Defendants never
sought enforcement of the delegation provision before the district
court, the Ninth Circuit finds.  Instead, the Defendants explicitly
sought a "judicial judgment on the merits" for the gateway
questions of arbitrability, a "choice that was inconsistent with
the agreement to arbitrate those claims."  The Ninth Circuit holds
that the Defendants' newly raised argument would penalize Garcia
for not specifically challenging in the district court a provision
that they never gave her notice they were seeking to enforce.
These circumstances satisfy the knowledge, inconsistent acts, and
prejudice elements for a waiver of arbitration.

Therefore, the Ninth Circuit affirmed.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 30, 2021 Memorandum is
available at https://tinyurl.com/5cxhsw9u from Leagle.com.


J.M. SMUCKER: Ashton Consumer Suit Moved From C.D. Cal. to W.D. Mo.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled SHELLY ASHTON and JAY SCHOENER, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE J.M. SMUCKER CO. and
DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 5:20-cv-00992, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California to the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Missouri on April 5, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Missouri assigned
Case No. 4:21-cv-00221-BP to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged breach of express
warranty, breach of implied warranty, intentional and negligent
misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and violations of the
California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California's False
Advertising Law, the California's Unfair Competition Law, the New
York General Business Law, and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act by
failing to disclose to consumers the true number of servings
contained within Folgers ground coffee canisters.

The J.M. Smucker Co. is an American manufacturer of jam, peanut
butter, jelly, fruit syrups, beverages, shortening, ice cream
toppings, and other products in North America, headquartered in
Orrville, Ohio. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:          
         
         Benjamin Heikali, Esq.
         Joshua Nassir, Esq.
         FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
         10866 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1470
         Los Angeles, CA 90024
         Telephone: (424) 256-2884
         Facsimile: (424) 256-2885
         E-mail: bheikali@faruqilaw.com
                 jnassir@faruqilaw.com

                 - and –

         Aubry Wand, Esq.
         THE WAND LAW FIRM, P.C.
         400 Corporate Pointe, Suite 300
         Culver City, CA 90230
         Telephone: (310) 590-4503
         Facsimile: (310) 590-4596
         E-mail: awand@wandlawfirm.com

JELLY BELLY: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Williams Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
MILTON WILLIAMS, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHER PERSONS
SIMILARLY SITUATED v. JELLY BELLY CANDY COMPANY, Case No.
1:21-cv-02207 (S.D.N.Y., March 12, 2021) alleges that the Defendant
failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website to
be fully and equally accessible to and independently usable by
Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired people.

According to the complaint, the Defendant's denial of full and
equal access to its Website, https://www.jellybelly.com, and
therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby and
in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of the
Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act and
California's Unruh Civil Rights Act.

Because the Defendant's Website is not fully or equally accessible
to blind and visually impaired consumers, resulting in violation of
the ADA, the Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a
change in the Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so
that the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to
blind and visually-impaired consumers.

The Plaintiff is a visually impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read Website content using her
computer. The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or
"visually-impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments
who meet the legal definition blindness in that they have a visual
acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200. Some
blind people who meet this definition have limited vision. Others
have no vision.

The Defendant operates the Jelly Belly online retail store across
the United States. This online retail store constitutes a place of
public accommodation. Defendant’s Website provides consumers with
access to an array of goods including information about purchasing
specialty jelly bean items, gifts and other products available
online for purchase, and to ascertain information relating to
pricing, shipping, ordering merchandise and return and privacy
policies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
          Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: (212) 228-9795
          Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
          E-mail: Michael@Gottlieb.legal
                  Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal
                  Dana@Gottlieb.legal

JESUS ORDONEZ: Underpays Construction Workers, Montalvo Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
MANUEL MONTALVO, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JESUS ORDONEZ and MONICA DEL CARMEN ORDONEZ,
individually and doing business as JEMO CONTRACTORS, Defendants,
Case No. 4:21-cv-00960 (S.D. Tex., March 25, 2021) is a collective
action complaint brought against the Defendants for their alleged
failure to pay the overtime premium in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendants as a construction
worker from September 2019 until February 18, 2021.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated construction workers regularly worked in excess of 40
hours per week. However, the Defendant did not pay them an overtime
premium at the rate of one and one-half times their regular rate
for all hours they worked over 40 in a workweek. Instead, the
Defendant paid them straight time for all hours they worked, added
the suit.

The Plaintiff and other similarly situated construction workers
have suffered damages as a direct result of the Defendants'
unlawful practices. Thus, the Plaintiff seeks to recover from the
Defendants all unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees and litigation costs, pre-judgment interest, and
other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Jesus Ordonez and Monica Del Carmen owned and operated Jemo
Contractors, a company that provides construction services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
          THE BUENKER LAW FIRM
          2060 North Loop West, Suite 215
          Houston, TX 77018
          Tel: (713) 868-3388
          Fax: (713) 683-9940
          E-mail: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com


JONES FINANCIAL: Anderson Putative Class Suit Underway
------------------------------------------------------
The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. said in its Form 10-K
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
March 12, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that
Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P. continues to defend a putative class
action suit entitled, Anderson, et al. v. Edward D. Jones & Co.,
L.P., et al.

On March 30, 2018, Edward Jones and its affiliated entities and
individuals were named as defendants in a putative class action
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California.  

The lawsuit was brought under the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended , and the Exchange Act, as well as Missouri and California
law and alleges that the defendants inappropriately transitioned
client assets from commission-based accounts to fee-based programs.


The plaintiffs requested declaratory, equitable, and exemplary
relief, and compensatory damages.  

On July 9, 2019, the district court entered an order dismissing the
lawsuit in its entirety without prejudice.

On July 29, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint,
which eliminated certain affiliated entities and individuals as
defendants, withdrew the claims under the Securities Act, added
claims under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as amended, and
certain additional state law claims, and reasserted the remaining
claims with modified allegations.  

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss, the plaintiffs
subsequently withdrew their Investment Advisers Act claims, and on
November 12, 2019, the district court granted defendants' motion to
dismiss.  

The plaintiffs appealed the district court's dismissal of certain
of their state law claims but did not appeal the dismissal of the
remaining claims.  

On March 4, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
reversed the district court's decision, holding the district court
has jurisdiction over the state law claims that were the subject of
the plaintiffs' appeal and remanded the case to the district court
for further proceedings on those claims.

Edward Jones and its affiliated entities and individuals deny the
plaintiffs' allegations and intend to continue to vigorously defend
this lawsuit.

The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P., through its subsidiary,
Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., operates as a registered
broker-dealer. The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. was founded
in 1871 and is based in Des Peres, Missouri.

JONES FINANCIAL: Bland Class Suit Over Race Bias Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------
The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. said in its Form 10-K
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
March 12, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that
the company continues to defend a discrimination class action suit
entitled, Bland v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., et al.

On May 24, 2018, Edward Jones and the company (JFC) were named as
defendants in a putative class action lawsuit (Bland v. Edward D.
Jones & Co., L.P., et al.) filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois by a former financial advisor under
42 U.S.C. Section 1981, alleging that the defendants discriminated
against the former financial advisor and other financial advisors
and financial advisor trainees on the basis of race.  

On July 27, 2018, two named plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
adding allegations of discrimination and retaliation under 42
U.S.C. Section 2000e, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and
retaliation under 42 U.S.C. Section 1981. On November 26, 2018,
three named plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint.

The lawsuit seeks equitable and injunctive relief, as well as
compensatory and punitive damages.  

Edward Jones and JFC deny the allegations and intend to vigorously
defend this lawsuit.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P., through its subsidiary,
Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., operates as a registered
broker-dealer. The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. was founded
in 1871 and is based in Des Peres, Missouri.


JONES FINANCIAL: Bland FLSA-Related Class Suit Underway
-------------------------------------------------------
The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. said in its Form 10-K
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
March 12, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that
the company continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Bland
v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., et al.

On March 13, 2018, Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. (JFC) and
Edward Jones were named as defendants in a purported collective and
class action lawsuit (Bland, et al. v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P,
et al.) filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois by four former financial advisors.  

The lawsuit was brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
as well as Missouri and Illinois law and alleges that the
defendants unlawfully attempted to recoup training costs from
departing financial advisors and failed to pay all overtime owed to
financial advisor trainees among other claims.  

The lawsuit seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, compensatory
and liquidated damages.

On March 19, 2019, the court entered an order granting the
defendants' motion to dismiss all claims but permitting the
plaintiffs to amend and re-file certain of their claims.  

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on May 3, 2019. On March 30,
2020, the court partially granted the defendants' renewed motion to
dismiss the amended complaint and dismissed seven of the ten causes
of action it purported to state.  

The court's order eliminated from the case any claims that rely
upon the firm's contractual right to recoup training costs as well
as related claims for declaratory relief.  It also dismissed
various state law claims.  

JFC and Edward Jones deny the allegations in the remaining counts
and intend to vigorously defend against the allegations in this
lawsuit.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P., through its subsidiary,
Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., operates as a registered
broker-dealer. The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. was founded
in 1871 and is based in Des Peres, Missouri.

JONES FINANCIAL: Settlement in McDonald Suit to be Administered
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. said in its Form 10-K
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
March 12, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that
the settlement in McDonald v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., et al.,
is in the process of being administered.

On August 19, 2016, The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. (JFC),
Edward Jones and certain other defendants were named in a putative
class action lawsuit (McDonald v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., et
al.) filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974, as amended, by a participant in the Edward D. Jones & Co.
Profit Sharing and 401(k) Plan.

The lawsuit alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary
duties to Retirement Plan participants and seeks declaratory and
equitable relief and monetary damages on behalf of the Retirement
Plan.  

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the McDonald lawsuit which
was granted in part dismissing the claim against JFC and denied in
part as to all other defendants on January 26, 2017.

On November 11, 2016, a substantially similar lawsuit (Schultz, et
al. v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., et al.) was filed in the same
court. The plaintiffs consolidated the two lawsuits by adding the
Schultz plaintiffs to the McDonald case, and the Schultz action was
dismissed.  The plaintiffs filed their first amended consolidated
complaint on April 28, 2017.

On December 13, 2018, the court entered a preliminary order
approving a class action settlement agreement reached among the
parties.

Following a fairness hearing held on April 18, 2019, the court
entered judgment on April 22, 2019 in which it granted final
approval of the settlement, effected a full release of claims by
the settlement class in favor of the defendants, and dismissed the
consolidated lawsuit with prejudice.  

On June 14, 2019, the lone objector filed an appeal to the judgment
approving the settlement. On January 31, 2020, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied the objector's appeal and
affirmed the district court's approval of the class action
settlement.  

On February 6, 2020, the objector petitioned the Court of Appeals
for a rehearing, which was denied on March 3, 2020. On October 5,
2020, the U.S. Supreme Court denied a petition for certiorari the
objector filed on May 11, 2020 seeking review of the Court of
Appeals' decision. The settlement is in the process of being
administered.

The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P., through its subsidiary,
Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., operates as a registered
broker-dealer. The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. was founded
in 1871 and is based in Des Peres, Missouri.

JONES FINANCIAL: Settlement in Watson Suit Granted Final Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. said in its Form 10-K
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
March 12, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that
the settlement in the putative class action suit entitled, Watson,
et al. v. The Jones Financial Companies L.L.L.P., et al., has been
granted final approval.

On April 25, 2019, Edward Jones and the company (JFC) were named as
defendants in a putative class action (Watson, et al. v. The Jones
Financial Companies L.L.L.P., et al.) filed by two former financial
advisors in the Superior Court of the State of California,
Sacramento County.  

Plaintiffs allege that defendants did not reimburse financial
advisors and financial advisor trainees in California for certain
categories of business expenses, which plaintiffs allege violates
the California Labor Code and California Unfair Competition Law.  

The lawsuit seeks damages and restitution as well as attorneys'
fees and costs and equitable and injunctive relief.  

On February 19, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking the
court's approval of a proposed class action settlement reached by
the parties.  

On November 16, 2020, the court granted final approval of the
settlement.

The settlement is in the process of being administered.

The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P., through its subsidiary,
Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., operates as a registered
broker-dealer. The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. was founded
in 1871 and is based in Des Peres, Missouri.

JORGE'S RESTAURANT: Vargas Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
--------------------------------------------------------------
CIRIACO MARCOS VARGAS PICHARDO, on behalf of himself, FLSA
Collective Plaintiffs and the Class, v. JORGE'S RESTAURANT II CORP
d/b/a NEW CARRIZAL RESTAURANT, and SILVIO RODRIGUEZ, Case No.
1:21-cv-01370 (S.D.N.Y., March 15, 2021) seeks to recover unpaid
wages, including overtime, due to a fixed salary, unpaid wages due
to invalid tip credit, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and
costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York
Labor Law.

The Plaintiff additionally alleges for damages under the Internal
Revenue Code for relief, damages, fees and costs in this matter
because the Defendants willfully filed fraudulent tax information
forms with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).

In July 2019, the Plaintiff contends that he was hired by the
Defendants to work as a delivery person at the Defendants'
Restaurant located at 1346 Broadway, Brooklyn, New York 11221. He
was employed by the Defendants until in or around April 2020. He
worked six days per week from 3:00 p.m. until 12:00 a.m., for a
total of 54 hours per week throughout his employment. He adds that
he regularly worked over 40 hours per week, however, he was not
compensated his overtime premium for hours worked over 40.
Similarly, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and Class Members also worked
similar hours that regularly exceeded 40 hours over week and were
similarly paid at a straight time rate for their overtime hours.

The Plaintiff brings claims for relief as a collective action
pursuant to FLSA Section 16(b), 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), on behalf
of all current and former non-exempt employees (including but not
limited to delivery persons, waiters, runners, busboys, bartenders,
food preparers, porters, line-cooks, cooks, chefs, dishwashers
among others) employed by the Defendants on or after the date that
is six (6) years before the filing of the Complaint.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant under the trade name
"NEW CARRIZAL RESTAURANT."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          Anne Seelig, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor
          New York, NY 10011
          Telephone: (212) 465-1188
          Facsimile: (212) 465-1181

JUMIA TECHNOLOGIES: Awaits Approval of Settlements in Class Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jumia Technologies AG  said in its Form 20-F report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 12, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that company awaits the
court's approval of the settlements in the putative class action
suits filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York and the New York County Supreme Court.

Several putative class action lawsuits were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York and the New
York County Supreme Court against the and other defendants,
including certain current and former members of our management and
supervisory boards.

The cases assert claims under federal securities laws based on
alleged misstatements and omissions in connection with, and
following, our initial public offering.

On August 11, 2020, the company reached an agreement to fully
resolve all of the actions, subject to conditions including court
approval.

Under this agreement, in which the defendants do not admit any
liability or wrongdoing, Jumia will make a settlement payment of $5
million, $1 million of which will be funded by insurance coverage.


The settlement amounts were paid into an escrow account in January
2021.

No shareholders have filed objections to the settlements.

Final settlement approval hearings have been scheduled in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York and the New
York County Supreme Court cases for March 24, 2021 and March 18,
2021, respectively.

Jumia Technologies AG provides e-commerce platform. The Company
offers marketplace, logistics, shipment, delivery, and payment
services. Jumia Technologies serves clients worldwide. The company
is based in Berlin, Germany.

JUUL LABS: Bibb County Sues Over Marketing of E-Cigarette Products
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bibb County School District v. JUUL Labs, Inc. F/K/A PAX Labs,
Inc., James Monsees, Adam Bowen, Nicholas Pritzker, Hoyoung Huh,
Riaz Valani, Altria Group, Inc., Altria Client Services LLC, Altria
Group Distribution Company, and Philip Morris USA, Inc., Case No.
3:21-cv-01734 (N.D. Cal., March 12, 2021) arises from the
Defendants production, promotion, distribution, and marketing of
e-cigarette products, including JUUL, for use by youth in
Plaintiff's school district in violations of the Georgia Public
Nuisance Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and its students have a
right to be free from conduct that endangers their health and
safety. Yet the Defendants have allegedly engaged in conduct and
omissions which unreasonably and injuriously interfered with the
public health and safety in Plaintiffs community and created
substantial and unreasonable annoyance, inconvenience, and injury
to the public by their marketing of e-cigarette products.

Plaintiff Bibb County Schools is a public school district in Bibb
County, Georgia. The Plaintiff serves over 20,000 students in 37
schools and programs.

JLI designs, manufactures, sells, markets, advertises, promotes and
distributes JUUL e-cigarettes devices, JUUL pods and accessories.
Prior to the formation of separate entities PAX Labs, Inc. and JLI
in or around April 26 2017, JUUL designed, manufactured, sold,
marketed, advertised, promoted, and distributed JUUL under the name
PAX Labs, Inc.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas P. Cartmell, Esq.
          Jonathan P. Kieffer, Esq.
          Tyler W. Hudson, Esq.
          WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP
          4740 Grand Ave., Ste. 300
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 701-1100
          Facsimile: (816) 531-2372
          E-mail: tcartmell@wcllp.com
                  jpkieffer@wcllp.com
                  thudson@wcllp.com

               - and -

          Nathan C. Bess, Esq.
          AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC
          17 East Main Street, Suite 200
          Pensacola, FL 32502
          Telephone: (850) 202-1010
          E-mail: nbess@awkolaw.com

               - and -

          Kirk J. Goza, Esq.
          Brad Honnold, Esq.
          GOZA & HONNOLD LLC
          9500 Nall Ave., Ste 400
          Overland Park, KS 66207
          Telephone: (913) 451-3433
          E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com
          bhonnold@gohonlaw.com

               - and -

          Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq.
          Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq.
          BEASLEY ALLEN CROW
          METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, LLC
          234 Commerce Street
          Montgomery, AL 36103
          Telephone: (334) 269-2343
          E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com
                  Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com

JUUL LABS: E-Cigarettes Target Youth Market, Aceti Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
SHAYLA ACETI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC.; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; PHILIP
MORRIS USA, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP
DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER;
HOYOUNG HUH; and RIAZ VALANI, Defendants, Case No.
3:21-cv-02232-WHO (N.D. Cal., Mar. 30, 2021) alleges that the
Defendants' packaging in the JUUL pod products contains false and
misleading information regarding the JUUL pods' nicotine content.

According to the complaint, the Defendants used the mail and wires
to transmit JUUL collateral and packaging that contained the false
representation that a single JUUL pod was equivalent to a pack of
cigarettes. A representation which the Defendants knew were false,
the suit adds.

The Defendants knew that JUUL contained an ultra-high concentration
of nicotine, and that ultra-high concentration of nicotine was
designed to addict. They also knew that e-cigarette products,
including JUUL, would expose users to increased health risks,
including risks to their lungs and cardiovascular system. Despite
that knowledge, the Defendants took affirmative actions, the
natural consequence of which was the approval and transmission of
these false and misleading advertisements that did not include a
disclosure of JUUL's high nicotine content and concentration, nor
any health risks at all, the suit asserts.

JUUL Labs, Inc. manufactures electronic cigarettes. The Company
offers products such as device kits, JUULpods, and accessories in
different flavors. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq.
          Jason S. Rathod, Esq.
          MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP
          412 H St., NE
          Washington, DC 20002
          Telephone: (202) 470-3520
          Facsimile: (202) 800-2730
          E-mail: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com
                  jrathod@classlawdc.com


KASEYA US: Robinson FLSA Class Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ANGEL ROBINSON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. KASEYA US LLC, Case No. 21-005111, was
removed from the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in
and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida on April 2, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-21253 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Kaseya US LLC is a computer software company located in New York,
New York. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
         
         Eric K. Gabrielle, Esq.
         STEARNS WEAVER MILLER WEISSLER ALHADEFF & SITTERSON, PA
         200 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 2100
         Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
         Telephone: (954) 462-9500
         E-mail: egabrielle@stearnsweaver.com

KINDER MORGAN: Barragan Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled LARRY BARRAGAN and FRANK CALANDRINO, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. KINDER MORGAN,
INC.; KINDER MORGAN TERMINALS, INC.; and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Case No. 21STCV06844, was removed from the Superior
Court of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on April 5,
2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:21-cv-02955 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Unfair Competition Law
including failure to authorize and permit rest periods, failure to
furnish accurate wage statements, and unfair competition.

Kinder Morgan, Inc. is an energy infrastructure company
headquartered in Houston, Texas.

Kinder Morgan Terminals, Inc. is an independent terminal operator
in North America, headquartered in Houston, Texas. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:          
         
         Christopher C. Hoffman, Esq.
         Aaron F. Olsen, Esq.
         Phillip G. Simpler, Esq.
         Cameron J. Davila, Esq.
         FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
         4747 Executive Drive, Suite 1000
         San Diego, CA 92121
         Telephone: (858) 597-9600
         Facsimile: (858) 597-9601
         E-mail: choffman@fisherphillips.com
                 aolsen@fisherphillips.com
                 psimpler@fisherphillips.com
                 cdavila@fisherphillips.com

L&M LOGISTICS: Gordon Files Suit in California Superior Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against L&M Logistics Group,
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Keenen W. Gordon, on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. L&M Logistics Group, Inc., a
California Coporation; Marlon T. Wells, Case No. BCV-21-100771
(Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., April 6, 2021).

The case type is stated as "CV Other Employment - Civil
Unlimited."

L&M Logistics Group, Inc. -- https://lmlogisticsgroup.com/ -- is a
licensed and bonded freight shipping and trucking company running
freight hauling business from Rosamond, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David D. Bibiyan, Esq.
          BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C.
          8484 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 500
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3243
          Phone: (310) 438-5555
          Fax: (310) 300-1705
          Email: david@tomorrowlaw.com


LENNOX IND.: Darrett Suit Removed from State Ct. to C.D. Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as Michael Darrett, et al., v.
Lennox Industries, Inc., Case No. 21STCV0471 was removed from the
Superior Court of California for the Los Angeles County to the
United States District Court for the Central District of California
(Western Division -- Los Angeles) on March 15, 2021.

The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:21-cv-02289-VAP-JPR to the proceeding.

The nature of suit states as Contract: Other demanding $5 Million
in damages. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Virginia A.
Phillips.

Lennox is a provider of climate control products for the heating,
ventilation, air conditioning, and refrigeration markets. Lennox
also includes the Heatcraft Refrigeration and Armstrong
brands.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Seyed Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          Jason A. Ibey, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC
          245 Fischer Avenue Suite D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (800) 400-6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
          E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
                  jason@kazlg.com

               - and -

          Adib Hashemi Assassi, Esq.
          BLACK OAK LAW FIRM
          1100 West Town And Country Road, Suite 1250
          Orange, CA 92868
          Telephone: (949) 688-6009
          Facsimile: (800) 500-0301
          E-mail: adib@blackoaklaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jeff E. Scott, Esq.
          Steven Jason Rosenwasser, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP
          1840 Century Park East Suite 1900
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-2121
          Telephone: (310) 586-7700
          Facsimile: (310) 586-7800
          E-mail: scottj@gtlaw.com
                  rosenwassers@gtlaw.com

LEXICON PHARMACEUTICALS: Dismissal of Manopla Suit Under Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 12, 2021,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the appeal in the
purported securities class suit entitled, Daniel Manopla v. Lexicon
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Lonnel Coats, Jeffrey L. Wade and Pablo
Lapuerta, M.D., is pending.

On January 28, 2019, a purported securities class action complaint
captioned Daniel Manopla v. Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Lonnel
Coats, Jeffrey L. Wade and Pablo Lapuerta, M.D. was filed against
the Company and certain of its officers in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division.

The company's motion to dismiss was granted and the action was
dismissed with prejudice by the District Court on August 14, 2020.
The lead plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on September 11, 2020 and a brief in
support of its appeal on December 17, 2020.

The Company filed a response brief on February 18, 2021 and the
lead plaintiffs filed a reply brief on March 11, 2021.

The lawsuit purports to be a class action brought on behalf of
purchasers of the Company's securities during the period from March
11, 2016 through July 29, 2019.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by making materially false and misleading
statements and/or omissions concerning data from its Phase 3
clinical trials of sotagliflozin in type 1 diabetes patients and
the prospects of FDA approval of sotagliflozin for the treatment of
type 1 diabetes.

The complaint purports to assert claims for violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint seeks, on behalf of the
purported class, an unspecified amount of monetary damages,
interest, fees and expenses of attorneys and experts, and other
relief.

Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, focuses
on the development and commercialization of pharmaceutical
products. Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was founded in 1995 and is
headquartered in The Woodlands, Texas.

LEXINGTON INSURANCE: Winvian Seeks Payment for COVID-19 Losses
--------------------------------------------------------------
WINVIAN FARM, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. LEXINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Case
No. 3:21-cv-00169 (E.D. Va., March 12, 2021) asserts that the
Defendant pay the Plaintiff's loss of business income occasioned
directly by being unable to use its property.

Due to COVID-19, Winvian has suffered "direct physical loss or
damage" -- under the plain and ordinary meaning of that term
--because COVID-19 made the resort unusable in a way that it had
been used before COVID-19.

The Plaintiff contends that COVID-19 was not only a substantial
factor in causing the loss, it also was the predominant or
immediate factor in causing the loss or damage: COVID-19 was close
in proximity to the loss or damage, such that any ordinary person
would think that the loss or damage was in the zone of danger of
COVID-19.

According to the complaint, once able to freely welcome visitors
from all over the world and provide a luxurious resort and dining
experience to its guests, Winvian has drastically reduced its
business operations, made several structural alterations, changes
and/or repairs to its property, strictly limited the number of
lodging, dining, and spa guests, and closed or restricted access to
numerous other amenities. To do anything else would lead to the
emergence or reemergence of COVID-19 at the hotel. Until COVID-19
was brought even slightly under control, even such limited use as
this was not possible.

Winvian Farm is a luxury resort located in the Litchfield Hills of
Connecticut. Winvian includes a 1775 manor, including the 960
square foot Hadley Suite, and 18 individually-designed resort
cottages. Winvian is a member of Relais & Chateaux, an association
of more than 560 independent, landmark hotels and restaurants in 67
countries. Guests can book experiences at Winvian through the
Relais & Chateaux system.

Winvian is a member of Resort Hotel Association, Inc. (RHA),
located in Richmond, Virginia. RHA operates as an "insurance
community" for independent hoteliers in the United States and
Mexico. Defendants issued commercial property insurance to RHA for
March 8, 2020, to March 8, 2021, which provides that RHA and its
members are each an "Insured." Total Insurable Values for all
Insureds under the Policy exceed $7.5 billion.

Lexington Insurance is a surplus lines insurance company wholly
owned by AIG. It is the largest surplus lines insurer based in the
U.S., and it offers property, casualty, and specialty lines
insurance products.

The Defendants include ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, IRONSHORE
SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY,
ALLIED WORLD ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD, ARGO RE LTD, STARR SURPLUS
LINES INSURANCE COMPANY, CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S, LONDON
SUBSCRIBING TO POLICY NUMBERS PG2002147, PG2002992, PG2002216,
PG2002189, PG2002190, PG2002231, PG2002219, PG2002957, PG2002119,
PG2002995, PG2002229, and 2970, HAMILTON RE, LTD., NATIONAL
INDEMNITY COMPANY, AXIS SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE COMPANY, COLUMBIA
CASUALTY COMPANY, HDI GLOBAL INSURANCE COMPANY, SCOR UK COMPANY
LIMITED, GREAT LAKES INSURANCE SE, CHUBB BERMUDA INSURANCE LTD.,
HOUSTON CASUALTY COMPANY, MARKEL BERMUDA LIMITED, EVANSTON
INSURANCE COMPANY, PARTNERRE IRELAND INSURANCE LIMITED, and FIDELIS
UNDERWRITING LIMITED.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lisa S. Brook, Esq.
          E. Kyle McNew, Esq.
          MICHIE HAMLETT
          310 4th Street NE
          PO Box 298
          Charlottesville, VA 22902
          Telephone: (434) 951-7231
          Facsimile: (434) 951-7254
          E-mail: lbrook@michiehamlett.com
                  kmcnew@michiehamlett.com

               - and -

          Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
          Amy E. Keller, Esq.
          Daniel R. Ferri, Esq.
          Mark Hamill, Esq.
          Laura E. Reasons, Esq.
          Mark A. DiCello, Esq.
          Kenneth P. Abbarno, Esq.
          Mark Abramowitz, Esq.
          DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC
          Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 214-7900
          E-mail: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com
                  akeller@dicellolevitt.com
                  dferri@dicellolevitt.com
                  mhamill@dicellolevitt.com
                  lreasons@dicellolevitt.com
                  madicello@dicellolevitt.com
                  kabbarno@dicellolevitt.com
                  mabramowitz@dicellolevitt.com

               - and -

          Mark Lanier, Esq.
          Alex Brown, Esq.
          Ralph (Skip) McBride, Esq.
          THE LANIER LAW FIRM PC
          10940 West Sam Houston Parkway North, Suite 100
          Houston, TX 77064
          Telephone: (713) 659-5200
          E-mail: WML@lanierlawfirm.com
                  alex.brown@lanierlawfirm.com
                  skip.mcbride@lanierlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Timothy W. Burns, Esq.
          Jeff J. Bowen, Esq.
          Jesse J. Bair, Esq.
          Freya K. Bowen, Esq.
          BURNS BOWEN BAIR LLP
          One South Pinckney Street, Suite 930
          Madison, WI 53703
          Telephone: (608) 286-2302
          E-mail: tburns@bbblawllp.com
                  jbowen@bbblawllp.com
                  jbair@bbblawllp.com
                  fbowen@bbblawllp.com

               - and -

          Douglas Daniels, Esq.
          DANIELS & TREDENNICK
          6363 Woodway, Suite 700
          Houston, Texas 77057
          Telephone: (713) 917-0024
          E-mail: douglas.daniels@dtlawyers.com

LIFEFUELS INC: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against LifeFuels, Inc. The
case is styled as Ramon Jaquez, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. LifeFuels, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-02984
(S.D.N.Y., April 7, 2021).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

LifeFuels -- https://www.lifefuels.com/ -- is changing the way
consumers approach hydration and nutrition by empowering them to
create personalized beverages on the go.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
          MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC
          701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
          Asbury Park, NJ 07712
          Phone: (845) 367-7146
          Fax: (732) 298-6256
          Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com


LIGHT OF LIFE: Laster Sues Over Unpaid Overtime & Tax Evasion
-------------------------------------------------------------
LOUISE LASTER, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LIGHT OF LIFE, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 6:21-cv-00554-GAP-LRH (M.D. Fla., March 26, 2021) alleges
the Defendant of violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff has worked with the Defendant as a home health aide
since June 2018.

The Plaintiff claims that despite regularly working more than 40
hours per week, the Defendant did not pay her overtime premium at
the rate of one and one-half times her regular rate of pay for all
hours she worked in excess of 40 in a workweek. Instead, the
Defendant paid her regular hourly rate of $11 per hour only.
Additionally, the Defendant failed to make, keep, and preserve
records with respect to each of its employees in a manner to
determine their wages, hours, and other conditions of employment.

The Plaintiff also asserts that the Defendant failed to provide her
with IRS Forms W-2 for tax years 2018 through 2021. The Defendant
has intentionally avoided its IRS obligations by paying its home
health aide by check without deducting any applicable taxes.

As a result of the Defendant's alleged unlawful payroll practices
and policies, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated home
health aides have suffered damages. Thus, the Plaintiff brings this
complaint seeking for damages from the Defendant for unpaid
overtime wages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, all
litigation costs and attorney's fees incurred, and other relief as
the Court deems just and equitable.

Light of Life, Inc. provides health care services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Donna V. Smith, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA P.A.
          1110 N. Florida Ave., Suite 300
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Tel: (813) 224-0431
          Fax: (813) 229-8712
          E-mail: dsmith@wfclaw.com
                  rcooke@wfclaw.com


LINEAGE CELL: Ross Putative Class Action Ongoing
------------------------------------------------
Lineage Cell Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2021,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a putative class action suit entitled, Ross v.
Lineage Cell Therapeutics, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 2019-0822.

On October 14, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
challenging the Asterias Merger. This action (captioned Ross v.
Lineage Cell Therapeutics, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 2019-0822) was
filed in Delaware Chancery Court and names Lineage, the Asterias
board of directors, one member of Lineage's board of directors, and
certain stockholders of both Lineage and Asterias as defendants.

The action was brought by a purported stockholder of Asterias, on
behalf of a putative class of Asterias stockholders, and asserts
breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting claims under
Delaware law.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the process leading
up to the Asterias Merger was conflicted, that the Asterias Merger
consideration was inadequate, and that the proxy statement filed by
Asterias with the Commission omitted certain material information,
which allegedly rendered the information disclosed materially
misleading.

The complaint seeks, among other things, that a class be certified,
the recovery of monetary damages, and attorneys' fees and costs. On
December 20, 2019, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint.

On February 10, 2020, the plaintiff filed an opposition. Defendants
filed their replies on March 13, 2020.

On June 23, 2020, a hearing on the motions to dismiss occurred. On
September 21, 2020, the Chancery Court denied the motion to dismiss
as to Lineage and certain members of the Asterias board of
directors, and it granted the motion to dismiss as to all other
defendants.

On October 30, 2020, the remaining defendants filed an answer to
the complaint.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Lineage Cell Therapeutics, Inc. is a clinical-stage biotechnology
company developing novel cell therapies for unmet medical needs.
The company's focus is to develop therapies for degenerative
retinal diseases, neurological conditions associated with
demyelination, and aiding the body in detecting and combating
cancer. The company is based in Carlsbad, California.


LIPOCINE INC: Bid to Dismiss Abady Class Suit Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lipocine Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company's motion to
dismiss the class action suit entitled, Solomon Abady v. Lipocine
Inc. et al., 2:19-cv-00906-PMW, remains pending.

On November 14, 2019, the Company and certain of its officers were
named as defendants in a purported shareholder class action
lawsuit, Solomon Abady v. Lipocine Inc. et al., 2:19-cv-00906-PMW,
filed in the United District Court for the District of Utah.

The complaint alleges that the defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that the company's
filing of the new drug application (NDA) for TLANDO to the Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) contained deficiencies and as a result
the defendants' statements about our business and operations were
false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis in violation
of federal securities laws. The lawsuit seeks certification as a
class action (for a purported class of purchasers of the Company's
securities from March 27, 2019 through November 8, 2019),
compensatory damages in an unspecified amount, and unspecified
equitable or injunctive relief.

The Company insurance that covers claims of this nature. The
retention amount payable by the Company under our policy is $1.25
million. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the class action
lawsuit on July 24, 2020.

In response, the plaintiffs filed their response to the motion to
dismiss the class action lawsuit on September 22, 2020 and the
Company filed its reply to its motion to dismiss on October 22,
2020.

The Company intends to vigorously defend itself against these
allegations and has not recorded a liability related to this
shareholder class action lawsuit as the outcome is not probable nor
can an estimate be made of loss, if any.

Lipocine Inc. is a specialty pharmaceutical company focused on
applying oral drug delivery technology for the development of
pharmaceutical products in the area of men's and women's health.
The company is based in Salt Lake City, Utah.


LOANDEPOT INC: Defends Two TCPA Related Putative Class Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
loanDepot, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the Company is defending
two putative Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) class
actions.

The Company denies the allegations in these cases and is vigorously
defending both matters. The Company intends to a file dispositive
motions, which, if granted, would result in a finding of no
liability and dismissal of the actions.

In the second matter, the Company intends to file a motion to
defeat class certification, which, if granted, may result in a
nominal individual settlement.

loanDepot, Inc. said, "Given the lawsuits are at the early stages,
the Company is unable to estimate a range of possible loss with any
degree of reasonable certainty."

loanDepot, Inc. a customer-centric, technology-empowered
residential mortgage platform with a widely recognized consumer
brand. The company is based in Foothill Ranch, California.

LOGICBIO THERAPEUTICS: Afinowicz Purported Class Suit Underway
--------------------------------------------------------------
LogicBio Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 15, 2021, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues
to defend a purported shareholder class action entitled, John R.
Afinowicz v. LogicBio Therapeutics, Inc., et al., No.
2:20-cv-03009.

On March 18, 2020, a purported shareholder class action, John R.
Afinowicz v. LogicBio Therapeutics, Inc., et al., No.
2:20-cv-03009, was filed in the United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey, naming the Company and certain of its
officers as defendants.

The lawsuit alleges that the Company made material
misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact relating to
its Investigational New Drug submission for LB-001 in its public
disclosures, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.

The complaint seeks certification of a class of purchasers of the
company's common stock during the period from December 3, 2018
through February 10, 2020.

The plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the
putative class and an award of costs and expenses, including
attorney's fees.
.
On May 13, 2020, the defendants moved to transfer the action from
the District of New Jersey to the District of Massachusetts, and on
May 18, 2020, shareholder John R. Afinowicz moved for appointment
as lead plaintiff.  The Court granted Defendants' motion to
transfer on June 2, 2020, and the case was transferred to the
District of Massachusetts (No. 1:20-cv-11158) on June 18, 2020.  

On February 18, 2021, the court entered an order allowing the
parties' joint stipulation regarding deadlines associated with a
motion to dismiss an amended complaint which is to be filed,
subject to the case being trial-ready by March 1, 2022.

The Company believes that this action is without merit and intends
to defend it vigorously.

LogicBio said, "At this time, no assessment can be made as to the
likely outcome of this lawsuit or whether the outcome will be
material to the Company. As the potential outcome of this matter is
not probable or estimable as of December 31, 2020, the Company has
not recorded a liability related to it."

LogicBio Therapeutics, Inc. operates as a biotechnology company.
The Company develops therapeutic gene therapy vectors for the
treatment of genetic and infectious diseases. LogicBio Therapeutics
serves patients in the State of Massachusetts. The company is based
in Cambridge Massachusetts.

LOMPOC, CA: Fabricant Appeals Ruling in Torres Prison Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Movant DANNY FABRICANT filed an appeal from a court ruling entered
in the lawsuit entitled Yonnedil Torres, et al. v. Louis Milusnic,
et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-04450-CBM-PVC, in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California, Los Angeles.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs
accuse the Lompoc Federal Correctional Complex of an "ineffective"
and "unacceptable" response to the COVID-19 outbreak, which
included a lack of testing and personal protective equipment, in
addition to isolating inmates who tested positive for the
coronavirus in solitary confinement for several consecutive days
without medical care.

The appellate case is captioned as Yonnedil Torres, et al. v. Louis
Milusnic, et al., Case No. 21-55305, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on March 31, 2021. [BN]

Movant-Appellant DANNY FABRICANT, Proposed Intervenor, of USPL -
U.S. PENITENTIARY (LOMPOC) in Lompoc, California, appears pro se.

Petitioners-Appellees YONNEDIL CARROR TORRES, VINCENT REED, FELIX
SAMUEL GARCIA, ANDRE BROWN, and SHAWN L. FEARS, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Peter Bibring, Esq.
          ACLU OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
          140 S. Lake Avenue
          Pasadena, CA 81101
          Telephone: (213) 977-5295

               - and -

          Terry W. Bird, Esq.
          Jumin Lee, Esq.
          Naeun Rim, Esq.
          Oliver Rocos, Esq.
          Kate S. Shin, Esq.  
          Dorothy Wolpert, Esq.   
          BIRD, MARELLA, BOXER, WOLPERT, NESSIM,
           DROOKS, LINCENBERG & RHOW P.C.
          1875 Century Park East, 23rd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-2561
          Telephone: (310) 201-2100

               - and -

          Peter Jay Eliasberg, Esq.
          ACLU FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
          1313 West 8th Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90017

               - and -

          Sara Norman, Esq.
          Donald Specter, Esq.
          PRISON LAW OFFICE
          1917 Fifth Street
          Berkeley, CA 94710-1916
          Telephone: (510) 280-2621

Respondents-Appellees LOUIS MILUSNIC, in his capacity as Warden of
Lompoc; and MICHAEL CARVAJAL, in his capacity as Director of the
Bureau of Prisons, are represented by:

          Daniel Beck, Esq.
          Paul B. Green, Esq.
          Chung Hae Han, Esq.
          Keith Miles Staub, Esq.
          Damon Thayer, Esq.
          Jasmin Yang, Esq.    
          USLA - OFFICE OF THE U.S. ATTORNEY
          300 North Los Angeles Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90012

LORA DICARLO: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lora DiCarlo. The
case is styled as Ramon Jaquez, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Lora DiCarlo, Case No. 1:21-cv-02825
(S.D.N.Y., April 2, 2021).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

Lora DiCarlo -- https://www.loradicarlo.com/ -- is the disruptive
new brand known for engineering pleasure tech products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
          MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC
          701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
          Asbury Park, NJ 07712
          Phone: (845) 367-7146
          Fax: (732) 298-6256
          Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com


LOUISIANA: Intervenors' Bid to Dismiss Perrin Suit vs. DOT Granted
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOSEPH PERRIN v. STATE OF LOUISIANA, ET AL., Civil
Action No. 20-00165-BAJ-EWD (M.D. La.), Judge Brian A. Jackson of
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana
granted the Intervenors' Motion to Dismiss for Deficiencies under
Rule 17, Rule 12(b)(6) and for Lack of Standing.

The dispute arises out of an allegedly unpaid judgment ("Boudreaux
judgment") stemming from a Louisiana state court class action
lawsuit.  Plaintiff Perrin alleges that he was a member of a class
that obtained the Boudreaux judgment against the State of
Louisiana, Department of Transportation.  The State of Louisiana
has allegedly refused to pay the judgment.

The Plaintiff alleges that the State has paid or satisfied every
judgment held by other plaintiffs that remained due and unpaid from
on or after Aug. 5, 2003, through May 2018.  The State of Louisiana
has allegedly treated the Boudreaux judgment differently than all
other judgments of similarly situated judgment creditors.

The Plaintiff brought the instant action to enforce "the equal
protections owed to all" regarding the State's satisfaction of
amounts owed to judgment creditors.  He ultimately seeks to certify
the instant matter as a class action consisting of all persons who
hold an interest in the Boudreaux judgment pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 23.

Class members and the Plaintiff Class Representatives in the
underlying Class Action Litigation, Carol Morse, Janice Hyde, Peggy
Barringer, Devonna Milton, William Derbins and Jean Boudreaux,
intervened in the case through Independent Counsel and Class
Counsel as designated by the state court.  They allege that a Sept.
30, 2010 state court Order designated Independent Counsel and Class
Counsel in the Class Action Litigation.  The state court Order
allegedly gave Independent Counsel full authority to act with
certain veto rights supplied to the Class Counsel.  The alleged
purpose of the state court Order was to designate and authorize
specific attorneys -- Independent Counsel and Class Counsel -- who
could act on behalf of the Class Members and Class Representatives
to pursue efforts to collect on the state court judgment, subject
to the authority of the 21st Judicial District Court.

The Intervenors allege that since the Boudreaux judgment became
final, through the efforts of the Class Counsel, the State of
Louisiana through the Louisiana Legislature has paid $6.5 million
to reduce the amount due under the judgment during the Jindal
administration.  These payments are allegedly being held in a
special escrow account by Order of the 21st Judicial District Court
in agreement with the State.

The Intervenors allege that the Plaintiff's counsel in the instant
matter have no authority to act on behalf of the Class Members and
the Class Representatives.  Additionally, they assert that no order
or authority has been given to the Plaintiff to act alone on behalf
of the Class Members; rather, the Plaintiff was designated as one
of the class representatives of the Plaintiff Class.

They further allege that neither the Plaintiff nor the Plaintiffs'
Counsel ever contacted or obtained approval of Independent Counsel
or Class Counsel authorizing the filing of the federal Complaint.
They further allege that the federal Complaint is fraught with
legal impediments because it is in direct contravention of the
orders of the 21st Judicial District Court and represents a "rogue
effort to proceed without valid legal authority."

The State of Louisiana and the Class Members through Independent
Counsel, Class Counsel, and their lobbyists have allegedly been in
active negotiations to confect a final agreement to conclude the
claims of the Plaintiff Class, subject to approval of the 21st
Judicial District Court.  The Class Counsel and Independent Counsel
are allegedly responsible for the partial payments of $6.5 million
that have been made and have worked for years with the current
Administration and Legislature for a final resolution.

The Intervenors allege that the instant matter is not only a breach
of the state court's Order but impedes efforts to confect a final
agreement and may fatally jeopardize or delay same at a critical
time.  They argue that such actions are harmful to the real
Plaintiff Class that already exists in state court.  Accordingly,
the Intervenors move to dismiss the Plaintiff's Complaint for
deficiencies under Rule 17, Rule 12(b)(6), and for lack of
standing.

For a plaintiff to have sufficient standing under Article III, the
plaintiff must show the following: (1) he has suffered or will
suffer an injury; (2) his injury is traceable to the defendant's
conduct; and (3) a favorable federal court decision will likely
redress the injury.

The Plaintiff asserts that all three requirements for standing are
met.  Specifically, he argues that he has an injury-in-fact
particular to him as a judgment creditor; his injury is connected
to the State's action of non-payment of only one judgment; and his
injury can be remedied by the Court in an Order requiring "the
State to follow the mandates of the U.S. Constitution and provide
equal treatment to him as to all judgment creditors."

Judge Jackson doubts whether a favorable decision would redress the
alleged injury.  He says if the Plaintiff were to succeed in his
equal protection claim, the outcome would be an Order from the
Court requiring the State of Louisiana to pay the state court's
judgment arising out of the Class Action Litigation.  If the Court
were to issue such an Order, the parties would effectively be in
the same exact position that they are in today.  It is undisputed
that the state court has already ordered the State of Louisiana to
pay the judgment.  An Order from the Court would simply impose a
mandate on the State that already exists.

The Judge concludes that it is well established that a plaintiff
lacks standing where it is "uncertain that granting the plaintiff
the relief it wants would remedy its injuries."  Because a
favorable ruling from the Court will not redress the alleged
injury, the Plaintiff does not have standing to pursue the instant
action and the Intervenors' Motion to Dismiss is granted.  The
Plaintiff's claims are dismissed without prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 31, 2021 Ruling & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/3be3xmta from Leagle.com.


LOW COST INTERLOCK: Kemp Appeals Counsel Fees Bid Ruling to 9th Cir
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Jake L. Kemp filed an appeal from a court ruling entered
in the lawsuit entitled Jake L. Kemp v. Low Cost Interlock, Inc.,
Case No. 5:19-cv-01445-JGB-SHK, in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, Riverside.

The Plaintiff filed a class action lawsuit alleging that the
Defendant, Low Cost Interlock, Inc., violated the Consumer Leasing
Act (CLA) by failing to provide in his ignition interlock device
lease agreement certain disclosures required by the CLA.

Mr. Kemp seeks a review of the Court's Order dated March 19, 2021,
granting-in-part and denying-in-part his motion for attorneys' fees
and costs. Specifically, the Court granted final settlement
approval; denied Plaintiff's request for attorneys' fees of
$113,985.00 and instead awarded Class Counsel attorneys' fees in
the amount of $52,061.00; granted the request for costs and awarded
Class Counsel $2,036.40 in costs; granted the request for an
incentive award and awarded $2,500.00 to Plaintiff; and dismissed
the complaint with prejudice.

The appellate case is captioned as Jake Kemp v. Low Cost Interlock,
Inc., Case No. 21-55295, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit, filed on March 29, 2021.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellant Jake L. Kemp Mediation Questionnaire was due on
April 5, 2021;

   -- Transcript shall be ordered by April 28, 2021;

   -- Transcript is due on May 28, 2021;

   -- Appellant Jake L. Kemp opening brief is due on July 7, 2021;

   -- Appellee Low Cost Interlock, Inc. answering brief is due on
August 6, 2021; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief. [BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant JAKE L. KEMP, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, is represented by:

          Russell S. Thompson, IV, Esq.
          THOMPSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, PLLC
          5235 E. Southern Ave., Suite D106-618
          Mesa, AZ 85206
          Telephone: (602) 388-8898
          E-mail: rthompson@thompsonconsumerlaw.com

Defendant-Appellee LOW COST INTERLOCK, INC. is represented by:

          Jonathan Jeffrey Faria, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
          333 South Hope Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 680-8400
          E-mail: jonathan.faria@kirkland.com

               - and -

          Jonathan Goldstein, Esq.
          Tammy Tsoumas, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
          555 South Flower Street, Suite 3700
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 680-8392  
          E-mail: jonathan.goldstein@kirkland.com
                  tammy.tsoumas@kirkland.com

LUIS CALLE: Narvaez Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Construction Workers
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JUAN JOSE NARVAEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LUIS CALLE LANDSCAPING, INC. and
LUIS CALLE, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-01820 (E.D.N.Y., April 5,
2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law by failing
to compensate the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated
workers appropriate minimum wages, overtime pay, and spread of
hours premium for all hours worked, failing to post notices of the
minimum wage and overtime wage requirements in a conspicuous place
at the location of their employment, and failing to keep payroll
records.

Mr. Narvaez was employed by the Defendants as a masonry,
demolition, and construction worker from in or around April 2005
until in or around November 2020.

Luis Calle Landscaping, Inc. is a masonry contractor located in
Mastic, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
              
         Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
         HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC
         80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
         Kew Gardens, NY 11415
         Telephone: (718) 263-9591
         Facsimile: (718) 263-9598

LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA: Goldstein Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as Goldstein v. Luxottica of
America Inc., Case No. 502021CA001728, was removed from the 15th
Judicial Circuit Court of Palm Beach County, Florida, to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida (West Palm
Beach) on March 12, 2021.

The Southern District of Florida Court Clerk assigned Case No.
9:21-cv-80546-AMC to the proceeding.

The nature of the suit states Constitutional -- State Statute.

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Aileen M. Cannon.

Luxottica Retail North America Inc. offers prescription glasses and
sunglasses.[BN]

Plaintiff Jason Goldstein, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, is represented by:

          Andrew John Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A.
          14 N.E. 1st Ave., Ste. 1205
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone: (305) 479-2299
          Facsimile: (786) 623-0915
          E-mail: ashamis@sflinjuryattorneys.com

               - and -

          Manuel Santiago Hiraldo, Esq.
          HIRALDO P.A.
          401 E. Las Olas Blvd. Ste 1400
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394
          Telephone: (954) 400-4713
          mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com

               - and -

          Scott Adam Edelsberg, Esq.
          EDELSBERG LAW PA
          20900 NE 30th Ave.
          417 Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: (305) 975-3320
          E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com

The Defendant Luxottica of America Inc., doing business as: Ray-Ban
is reprsented by:

          Maria Kathleen Vigilante, Esq.
          Anahit Tagvoryan, Esq.
          David J. Oberly, Esq.
          Frank A. Dante, Esq.
          BLANK ROME LLP
          500 East Broward Blvd., Suite 2100
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394
          Telephone: (954) 512-1800
          E-mail: mvigilante@blankrome.com
                  atagvoryan@blankrome.com
                  DOberly@BlankRome.com
                  Dante@blankrome.com

MAIDEN HOLDINGS: Bid to Junk New Jersey Putative Class Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Maiden Holdings, Ltd. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 15, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the motion to dismiss the
putative class action suit filed before the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey, is pending.

A putative class action complaint was filed against Maiden
Holdings, Arturo M. Raschbaum, Karen L. Schmitt, and John M.
Marshaleck in the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey on February 11, 2019.

On February 19, 2020, the Court appointed lead plaintiffs, and on
May 1, 2020, lead plaintiffs filed an amended class action
complaint. The Amended Complaint asserts violations of Section
10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 (and Section 20(a) for
control person liability) arising in large part from allegations
that Maiden failed to take adequate loss reserves in connection
with reinsurance provided to AmTrust. Plaintiffs further claim that
certain of Maiden Holdings' representations concerning its
business, underwriting and financial statements were rendered false
by the allegedly inadequate loss reserves, that these
misrepresentations inflated the price of Maiden Holdings' common
stock, and that when the truth about the misrepresentations was
revealed, the Company's stock price fell, causing Plaintiffs to
incur losses.

On September 11, 2020, a motion to dismiss was filed on behalf of
all Defendants; the company cannot predict when the Court will
issue a decision on the motion.

Maiden said, "We believe the claims are without merit and we intend
to vigorously defend ourselves. It is possible that additional
lawsuits will be filed against the Company, its subsidiaries and
its respective officers due to the diminution in value of our
securities as a result of our operating results and financial
condition. It is currently uncertain as to the effect of such
litigation on our business, operating results and financial
condition."

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Maiden Holdings, Ltd. is a Bermuda-based holding company,
previously focused on serving the needs of regional and specialty
insurers in the United States, Europe, and select other global
markets. The company operates internationally providing branded
auto and credit life insurance products through insurer partners to
retail clients in the EU and other global markets through Maiden
Global Holdings, Ltd. and its subsidiaries. The company is based in
Pembroke, Bermuda.

MARINE CREDIT: Monroe Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA, WWPCL
-------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT MONROE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. MARINE CREDIT UNION, Case No. 2:21-cv-00329 (E.D. Wis.,
March 15, 2021) seeks relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938 and the Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws for
unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid agreed upon wages, liquidated
damages, costs, attorneys' fees, declaratory and/or injunctive
relief, and/or any such other relief the Court may deem
appropriate.

The Plaintiff contends that Defendant operated (and continues to
operate) an unlawful compensation system that deprived and failed
to compensate him and all other current and former hourly-paid,
non-exempt employees for all hours worked and work performed each
workweek, including at an overtime rate of pay for each hour worked
in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, by failing to compensate said
employees for "off the clock" hours worked and work performed each
work day and each workweek at Defendant's direction, on the
Defendant's behalf, for the Defendant's benefit, and/or with
Defendant's knowledge, in violation of the FLSA and WWPCL.

The Defendant is a credit union headquartered in La Crosse,
Wisconsin.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
          James A. Walcheske, Esq.
          WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
          235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240
          Brookfield, WI 53005
          Telephone: (262) 780-1953
          Facsimile: (262) 565-6469
          E-Mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
                  sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com

MARVELL TECH: Facing Inphi Merger Related Suits
-----------------------------------------------
Marvell Technology Group Ltd. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2021,
for the fiscal year ended January 30, 2021, that the company Inphi
Corporation, and the boards of directors of both companies are
facing suits including putative class action suit, related to the
merger of the companies.

On October 29, 2020, the company entered into a merger agreement
with Inphi, whereby the company will pay Inphi's stockholders $66
per share in cash and 2.323 common shares for each Inphi share,
which represented purchase consideration of approximately $10
billion as of that date.

The company intends to fund the cash consideration with $4.0
billion in debt financing, and have obtained commitments consisting
of $2.5 billion of bridge loan commitments, $875 million of
commitments for a 3-year term loan facility and $875 million of
commitments for a 5-year term loan facility, in each case, from a
syndicate of financial institutions, including, and arranged by,
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., and in each case the availability of
such facilities are subject to customary terms and conditions,
including completion of the merger with Inphi in accordance with
the Merger Agreement. The transaction is not subject to any
financing condition.

Marvell, Inphi, and the boards of directors of both companies
currently are and may in the future be parties, among others, to
various litigations related to the Merger Agreement and the Merger,
including putative shareholder class actions.

Five lawsuits have been filed against Inphi and the Inphi Board in
federal court: Wang v. Inphi Corp., et. al. (filed December 24,
2020, Northern District of California); Cohen v. Inphi Corp., et
al. (filed January 5, 2021, Southern District of New York); Jones
v. Inphi Corp., et al. (filed January 8, 2021, Eastern District of
New York); Rosenfeld v. Inphi Corp., et al. (filed January 20,
2021, Northern District of California); and Kearny v. Inphi Corp.,
et al. (filed January 29, 2021, Northern District of California).

Two additional federal complaints have been filed against Inphi,
its board of directors, and certain Marvell entities involved in
the Merger: MacIntosh v. Inphi Corp., et al. (filed December 30,
2020, Southern District of New York) and Poe v. Inphi Corp., et al.
(filed January 16, 2021, District of Delaware).

Three lawsuits have been filed against only Marvell and its board
of directors in federal court: Raul v. Marvell Tech. Group Ltd., et
al. (filed January 8, 2021, Southern District of New York); Cardone
v. Marvell Tech. Group Ltd., et al. (filed January 11, 2021,
Eastern District of New York); and Schumacher v. Marvell Tech.
Group, Ltd., et al. (filed January 16, 2021, District of Delaware).


All ten lawsuits assert claims for violation of Section 14(a) of
and Rule 14a-9 promulgated under the Exchange Act based on
allegations that the registration statement on Form S-4 filed by
Marvell with the SEC on December 22, 2020 omits material
information. The complaints also assert control person claims under
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the Marvell and Inphi
boards of directors. One of the complaints that names only Inphi
and its board of directors asserts an additional claim for breach
of fiduciary duty. As set forth in the Merger Agreement, no
settlement of litigation related to the Merger may be agreed to by
Inphi without the prior written consent of Marvell.

Among other remedies, the plaintiffs in such matters are seeking to
enjoin the Merger. The results of complex legal proceedings are
difficult to predict, and could delay or prevent the Merger from
becoming effective in a timely manner. Moreover, the pending
litigation and any future additional litigation could be
time-consuming and expensive, could divert Marvell's and Inphi's
management's attention away from their regular businesses, and, if
any one of these lawsuits is adversely resolved against either
Marvell or Inphi, could have a material adverse effect on Marvell's
or Inphi's respective financial condition or the condition of the
combined company.

Marvell said, "If a settlement or other resolution is not reached
in the potential lawsuits referenced above and the plaintiffs
secure injunctive or other relief prohibiting, delaying or
otherwise adversely affecting Marvell's or Inphi's ability to
complete the Merger on the terms contemplated by the Merger
Agreement, or there is a pending or overtly threatened legal
proceeding brought by a governmental party as described above, then
the Merger may not become effective in a timely manner or at all."

Marvell Technology Group Ltd., together with its consolidated
subsidiaries is a fabless semiconductor provider of
high-performance application-specific standard products. The
company's core strength is developing complex System-on-a-Chip
("SoC") devices, leveraging its technology portfolio of
intellectual property in the areas of analog, mixed-signal, digital
signal processing, and embedded and standalone integrated
circuits.


MID-HUDSON VALLEY: Facciola Sues Over Improper Overdraft Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
ASHLEY FACCIOLA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MID-HUDSON VALLEY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION,
Defendant, Case No. 7:21-cv-02676 (S.D.N.Y., Mar. 29, 2021) is a
case arising from the Defendant's practices of assessing
"'overdraft fees"' to consumer deposit accounts that were never
even overdrawn.

According to the complaint, in plain, clear, and simple language,
the contractual checking account documents promise that the
Defendant will only charge an overdraft fees for "'each item in
excess of available balance"' under the "'No Bounce Courtesy
Service."'

Allegedly, the Defendant regularly charges overdraft fees to its
consumer deposit accounts even where they are not overdrawn.
Specifically, the Plaintiff was repeatedly charged overdraft fees
on routine transactions, even though, according to the monthly
account statements prepared by the Defendant, the Plaintiff's
account balance never went into the negative for the supposed
overdraft event.

The Defendant is not authorized by contract to charge overdraft
fees on transactions that have not overdrawn an account. But the
Defendant nonetheless has done so and continues to do so, in breach
of its contract with its account holders.

MID-Hudson Valley Federal Credit Union operates as a financial
cooperative. The Union provides financial solutions such as loans,
investment, savings, credit and debit cards, online banking, and
other related services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph I. Marchese, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Ave, Third Floor
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (646) 837-7150
          Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
          E-mail: jmarchese@bursor.com


MINNESOTA ASSOCIATION: Appeals Fellows Suit Ruling to 8th Circuit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Minnesota Association of Professional Employees filed an
appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Mark
Fellows, Alicia Bonner, and Catherine Wyatt, Plaintiffs v.
Minnesota Association of Professional Employees, Defendants, Case
No. 0:20-cv-01128-SRN, in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Minnesota.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs, individually and on
behalf of the proposed class of all agency fee-payers whose money
was taken by Minnesota Association of Professional Employees
("MAPE" or "the Union") in violation of their First Amendment
rights, sue for the return of their money under 42 U.S.C. Section
1983.

The Minnesota Public Employment Labor Relations Act authorizes
exclusive representatives, such as MAPE, to require employees who
are not union members to pay agency fees to the union as a
condition of their employment. The Act provides that "[t]he
employer shall deduct the fee from the earnings of the employee and
transmit the fee to the exclusive representative 30 days after the
written notice was provided [by the exclusive representative]." The
collective bargaining agreements between MAPE and the State of
Minnesota applicable during the relevant time covered by this
complaint -- including the current 2019-2021 collective bargaining
agreement -- allegedly contain a provision requiring the State of
Minnesota to deduct agency fees from non-members on behalf of
MAPE.

From times prior to May 2014 to on or around June 27, 2018, and
acting under color of state law, MAPE compelled employees who were
not union members to pay agency fees to MAPE by causing the State
of Minnesota to deduct agency fees from those employees' earnings
and without their consent. This includes having the State of
Minnesota deduct agency fees from the Plaintiffs' earnings at times
during which they were nonmembers of MAPE and without their
consent, added the suit.

The Plaintiffs previously filed an appeal from the Court's Order
and Judgment dated February 12, 2021, granting Defendants' motions
to dismiss.

The Defendant is now seeking a review of the Court's Order dated
March 25, 2021, denying Defendants' motion to reconsider.

The appellate case is captioned as Mark Fellows, et al v. Minnesota
Association of Professional Employees, Case No. 21-1723, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, filed on
March 31, 2021. [BN]

Defendant-Appellant Minnesota Association of Professional Employees
is represented by:

          Brendan D. Cummins, Esq.
          Justin D. Cummins, Esq.
          CUMMINS & CUMMINS
          920 Second Avenue, S., Suite 1245
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 465-0108
          E-mail: brendan@cummins-law.com
                  justin@cummins-law.com

               - and -

          Scott A. Kronland, Esq.
          Amanda C. Lynch, Esq.
          Patrick Casey Pitts, Esq.
          ALTSHULER & BERZON
          177 Post Street, Suite 300
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 421-7151
          E-mail: skronland@altber.com
                  alynch@altshulerberzon.com
                  cpitts@altshulerberzon.com


Plaintiffs-Appellees Mark Fellows, Alicia Bonner, and Catherine
Wyatt, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, are
represented by:

          Craig S. Krummen, Esq.
          GREENBERG & TRAURIG
          90 S. Seventh Street, Suite 3500
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 259-9719
          E-mail: krummenc@gtlaw.com

               - and -

          William L. Messenger, Esq.
          NATIONAL RIGHT TO WORK LEGAL DEFENSE FOUNDATION
          8001 Braddock Road
          Springfield, VA 22160-0000
          Telephone: (703) 321-8510
          E-mail: wlm@nrtw.org   

               - and -

          Jeffrey Michael Schwab, Esq.
          Daniel Robert Suhr, Esq.
          LIBERTY JUSTICE CENTER
          208 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 1690
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 637-2280
          E-mail: jschwab@libertyjusticecenter.org
                  dsuhr@libertyjusticecenter.org

               - and -

          Douglas Seaton, Esq.
          UPPER MIDWEST LAW CENTER
          8421 Wayzata Boulevard
          Golden Valley, MN 55426
          Telephone: (612) 428-7001
          E-mail: doug.seaton@umwlc.org

MISSION PRODUCE: Former Employees File Suit Over Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mission Produce, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended January 31, 2021, that the company continues
to defend former employees' class action suits.

On April 23, 2020, former Mission Produce, Inc. employees filed a
class action lawsuit in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles against the company
alleging violation of certain wage and labor laws in California,
including failure to pay all overtime wages, minimum wage
violations, and meal and rest period violations, among others.

Additionally, on June 10, 2020, former Mission Produce, Inc.
employees filed a class action lawsuit in the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of Ventura against us alleging
similar violations of certain wage and labor laws.

The plaintiffs in both cases seek damages primarily consisting of
class certification and payment of wages earned and owed, plus
other consequential and special damages.

Mission Produce said, "We are currently seeking to consolidate the
two cases and narrow the potential classes. We believe that we have
not violated any wage or labor laws and are vigorously defending
against the claims. At this time, it is too soon to determine the
outcome of the litigation. As a result, the Company has not accrued
for any loss contingencies related to these claims because the
amount and range of loss, if any, cannot currently be reasonably
estimated."

Mission Produce, Inc. is a world leader in sourcing, producing and
distributing fresh avocados, serving retail, wholesale and
foodservice customers. The source, produce, pack and distribute
avocados to its customers and provide value-added services
including ripening, bagging, custom packing and logistical
management. The company is based in Oxnard, California.

MISTRAS GROUP: Price Purported Class Action Suit Underway
---------------------------------------------------------
Mistras Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues to
defend a purported class action suit entitled, Justin Price v.
Mistras Group, Inc.

Two proceedings have been filed in California Superior Court for
the County of Los Angeles regarding alleged violations of
California Labor Code.

Both cases are captions Justin Price v. Mistras Group, Inc., one
being a purported class action lawsuit on behalf of current and
former Mistras employees in California and the other was filed on
behalf of the State of California under the California Private
Attorney General Act on the basis of the same alleged violations.

Both cases are requesting payment of all damages, including unpaid
wages, and various fines and penalties available under California
law.

As a result of continued legal proceedings through March 2021, the
Company established a liability of $0.8 million on December 31,
2020 for a probable loss on this matter.

Mistras said, "However, no assurance can be given that this will be
the limit of the loss, or that the loss will not be materially more
than the $0.8 million liability. An estimate of the total possible
loss or range of the total possible loss cannot be made at this
time as matters are in preliminary stages."

Mistras Group, Inc. develops asset protection solutions. The
Company provides acoustic, ultrasonic, thermography, radiography,
and non-destructive testing platforms used to evaluate the
structural and mechanical integrity of critical energy, industrial,
and public infrastructure. Mistras Group serves customers
worldwide. The company is based in Princeton Junction, New Jersey.


MONARCH RECOVERY: Chotiswatdi Sues Over Unlawful Collection Letter
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case, PAMELA CHOTISWATDI, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MONARCH RECOVERY MANAGEMENT, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-02557 (C.D. Cal., March 24, 2021)
challenges the Defendant's alleged abusive debt collection
practices that violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff has an alleged obligation arises from a transaction
in which the money, property, insurance, or services that are
subject of the transaction were incurred primarily for personal,
family, or household purposes.

The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant sent him a collection
letter on June 25, 2020 in an attempt to collect the alleged debt.
Purportedly, the Defendant's letter is based on a form or template
which failed to correctly inform the consumer of her requirement to
dispute the debt in writing as required by law and/or to accurately
provide the statements required by 15 U.S.C. Section 1692g(a).
Accordingly, Defendants has used the template to send collection
letters to over 40 individuals in the State of California within
the year prior to the filing of the original complaint in this
matter.

The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against the
Defendant on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
seeking for actual damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and
litigation costs, pre- and post-judgment interest, and other relief
as the Court may deem proper.

Monarch Recovery Management, Inc. is a debt collector. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Garrett Charity, Esq.
          McCARTHY LAW, PLC
          4250 N. Drinkwater Blvd., Ste. 320
          Scottsdale, AZ 85251
          Tel: (602) 456-8900
          Fax: (602) 218-4447
          E-mail: litigation@mccarthylawyer.com


MONARCH RECOVERY: Faces Pegues FDCPA Suit in District of Minnesota
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Monarch Recovery
Management, Inc., et al. The case is captioned as Pegues v. Monarch
Recovery Management, Inc., et al., Case No. 0:21-cv-00707-WMW-KMM
(D. Minn., March 15, 2021).

The suit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act involving consumer credit and is assigned to the Hon. Judge
Wilhelmina M. Wright.

Monarch Recovery operates as a collection agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff Leonard Pegues individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated is represented by:

          Avraham Z Cutler, Esq.
          BALLON STOLL BADER & NADLER, PC
          729 7th Ave 17th Fl
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (718) 578-7711
          Facsimile: (212) 764-5060
          E-mail: avicutler@gmail.com

MORRIS PARK: Brewster Files Suit in New York Superior Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Morris Park Nursing
and Rehab Center LLC. The case is styled as Yvette Brewster, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Morris Park
Nursing and Rehab Center LLC doing business as Morris Park Nursing
Home, Case No. 34642/2019 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Bronx Cty., April 5,
2021).

The case type is stated as "E-FILED OTH(NONE OF THE ABOVE)."

Morris Park Nursing And Rehabilitation Center --
https://morrisparkrehab.com/ -- is a nursing home in Bronx, New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          LOUIS GINSBERG, P.C.
          Phone: (516) 625-0105

The Defendant is represented by:

          JACKSON LEWIS LLP
          666 3RD AVENUE
          NEW YORK, NY 10017
          Phone: (212) 545-4000


MULTIPLAN CORP: Facing Verger Putative Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Multiplan Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company is facing a
putative securities class action suit entitled, Verger v. MultiPlan
Corporation et al., No. 1:21-cv-01965.

On February 24, 2021 and March 5, 2021, putative securities class
action complaints captioned Srock v. MultiPlan Corporation et al.,
No. 1:21-cv-1640 (S.D.N.Y.) and Verger v. MultiPlan Corporation et
al., No. 1:21-cv-01965 (S.D.N.Y.) were filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The Srock lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed on March 15, 2021.

The Verger lawsuit is brought against the Company; its Chief
Executive Officer, Mr. Mark Tabak; and its Chief Financial Officer,
Mr. David Redmond, as well as individuals and entities involved in
the Transactions, including Paul Galant, the company's President,
New Markets, and Glenn August and Michael Klein, each of whom
currently serve on the company's Board.

The complaint asserts claims for violations of Sections 10(b),
14(a), and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rules
10b-5 and 14a-9 promulgated thereunder and seek damages based on
alleged material misrepresentations and omissions concerning the
Transactions. The proposed class period is July 12, 2020, through
November 10, 2020, inclusive.

Multiplan said, "These or other securities litigation against us
could result in substantial costs and divert our management's
attention and resources from other business concerns, which could
seriously harm our business. Any adverse determination in any such
litigation or any amounts paid to settle any such actual or
threatened litigation could require that we make significant
payments."

Multiplan Corporation is a leading value-added provider of data
analytics and technology-enabled end-to-end cost management,
payment and revenue integrity solutions to the U.S. healthcare
industry. The company is based in New York, New York.

MYRIAD GENETICS: Purported Class Suit in Utah Underway
------------------------------------------------------
Myriad Genetics, Inc. said in its Form 10-KT report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2021, for the
transition period from July 1, 2020 to December 31, 2020, that the
company continues to defend a purported class suit in the United
States District Court for the District of Utah.

On September 27, 2019, a purported class action complaint was filed
in the United States District Court for the District of Utah,
against the Company, its former President and Chief Executive
Officer, Mark C. Capone, and its Interim President and Chief
Executive Officer, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer, R. Bryan Riggsbee.

On February 21, 2020, the plaintiff filed an amended class action
complaint, which added the Company's Executive Vice President of
Clinical Development, Bryan M. Dechairo, as an additional
Defendant. This action, captioned In re Myriad Genetics, Inc.
Securities Litigation (No. 2:19-cv-00707-DBB), is premised upon
allegations that the Defendants made false and misleading
statements regarding our business, operations, and acquisitions.  

The lead plaintiff seeks the payment of damages allegedly sustained
by it and the purported class by reason of the allegations set
forth in the amended complaint, plus interest, and legal and other
costs and fees.  

The Company intends to vigorously defend against this action.

Due to the nature of this matter and inherent uncertainties, it is
not possible to provide an evaluation of the likelihood of an
unfavorable outcome or an estimate of the amount or range of
potential loss, if any.

Myriad Genetics, Inc., a molecular diagnostic company, focuses on
developing and marketing novel predictive medicine, personalized
medicine, and prognostic medicine tests worldwide. Myriad Genetics,
Inc. was founded in 1991 and is headquartered in Salt Lake City,
Utah.


NABRIVA THERAPEUTICS: May 14 Final Settlement Approval Hearing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nabriva Therapeutics plc said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2021, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the final settlement
approval hearing set for May 14, 2021.

On May 8, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against
the Company and its Chief Executive Officer in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned
Larry Enriquez v. Nabriva Therapeutics PLC, and Ted Schroeder, No.
19-cv-04183.

The complaint purported to be brought on behalf of shareholders who
purchased the Company's securities between November 1, 2018 and
April 30, 2019.

The complaint generally alleged that the Company and its Chief
Executive Officer violated Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by making allegedly false and/or misleading statements
and omitting to disclose material facts concerning the Company's
submission of a new drug application (NDA) to the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) for marketing approval of CONTEPO for the
treatment of cUTI in the United States and the likelihood of such
approval.

The complaint sought unspecified damages, attorneys' fees, and
other costs.

On May 22, 2019, a second putative class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company and its Chief Executive Officer in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
captioned Anthony Manna v. Nabriva Therapeutics PLC, and Ted
Schroeder, No. 19-cv-04713.

The complaint purported to be brought on behalf of shareholders who
purchased the Company's securities between November 1, 2018 and
April 30, 2019.

The allegations made in the Manna complaint were similar to those
made in the Enriquez complaint, and the Manna complaint sought
similar relief.

On May 24, 2019, these two lawsuits were consolidated by the court.
The court appointed a lead plaintiff and approved plaintiff's
selection of lead counsel on July 22, 2019.

On September 23, 2019, plaintiff filed an amended complaint, adding
the Company's Chief Financial Officer and Chief Medical Officer as
defendants; the amended complaint purports to be brought on behalf
of shareholders who purchased the Company's securities between
January 4, 2019 through April 30, 2019, and otherwise includes
allegations similar to those made in the original complaints and
seeks similar relief.

The Company's pre-motion letter to dismiss the amended complaint
was due to plaintiff on October 21, 2019, and plaintiff responded
to the Company via a letter on November 4, 2019.

On November 18, 2019, the Company filed a pre-motion letter to
dismiss with the Court, seeking leave to move to dismiss and
setting forth why a motion to dismiss is warranted.

On April 28, 2020, the Court dismissed the amended complaint
without prejudice and granted plaintiff twenty days to show cause
why the lawsuit should not be dismissed with prejudice. On May 8,
2020, the Court granted plaintiff a 21-day extension to show cause.


On June 8, 2020, plaintiff filed a letter application to the court
seeking leave to file a proposed second amended complaint, and on
June 23, 2020, the court directed plaintiff to file the proposed
second amended complaint.

Plaintiff did so on June 24, 2020. The Company filed an answer to
the second amended complaint on July 8, 2020.

On October 21, 2020, the parties mediated this case and reached a
settlement.

On January 28, 2021, the court preliminarily approved the
settlement, subject to further consideration at the final approval
hearing, which is scheduled to be held on May 14, 2021. The
settlement will be covered in full by our directors' and officers'
insurance.

Nabriva Therapeutics plc, a biopharmaceutical company, engages in
the research and development of anti-infective agents to treat
infections in humans. The company was formerly known as Nabriva
Therapeutics Forschungs GmbH and changed its name to Nabriva
Therapeutics plc in 2007. Nabriva Therapeutics plc was incorporated
in 2005 and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland.

NATIONAL DELIVERY: Johnson Seeks Delivery Drivers' Unpaid OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
DWAYNE JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NATIONAL DELIVERY SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 0:21-cv-60653-XXXX (S.D. Fla., March 4, 2021) is a
collective action complaint brought by the Plaintiff against the
Defendant for its alleged unlawful pay practices in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is a current delivery driver of the Defendant.

The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant misclassified him and other
similarly situated delivery drivers as 1099 independent
contractors. Despite working in excess of 40 hours during one or
more workweeks, the Defendant did not properly pay them overtime
premiums at the applicable rate in accordance with the law, the
Plaintiff adds.

The Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages for himself
and other similarly situated delivery drivers, liquidated damages,
reasonable attorneys' fees and litigation costs, and other relief
as the Court deems just and proper.

National Delivery Solutions, LLC is a courier logistics company.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel R. Levine, Esq.
          PADULA BENNARDO LEVINE LLP
          3837 NW Boca Raton Blvd., Suite 200
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Tel: (561) 544-8900
          Fax: (561) 544-8999
          E-mail: drl@pbl-law.com


NATIONAL WESTERN: Facing Baldwin and Dyrssen Putative Class Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
National Western Life Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16,
2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company
is facing two proposed class action suits initiated by Mildred
Baldwin and Douglas Dyrssen Sr., respectively.

The Company reported that it experienced a data event in which an
intruder accessed and exfiltrated certain data from the Company's
network.

As a result of this event, the Company is aware of two proposed
class actions filed against the Company, Mildred Baldwin, on behalf
of herself and others similarly situated vs. National Western Life
Insurance Company, Missouri Circuit Court for the 18th Judicial
Circuit (Pettis County) filed February 16, 2021, and Douglas
Dyrssen Sr., individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated vs. National Western Life Insurance Company and National
Western Life Group, Inc., United States District Court for the
Eastern District of California filed March 8, 2021.

The actions are seeking an undetermined amount of damages,
attorneys' fees and costs, injunctive relief, declaratory and other
equitable relief, and enjoinment.

As the Company has been notified only recently of these lawsuits,
it is in the process of analyzing the merits of these various
allegations.

National Western said, "At this time, no prediction can be made as
to the likelihood or amount of any recovery against the Company. It
is possible other actions may be filed against the Company due to
the data event."

National Western Life Group, Inc. operates as a life insurance
company. The Company offers life and term life insurance products.
National Western Life Group serves customers in the United States.
The company is based in Austin, Texas.

NCINO INC: McAlear Challenges Alleged Illegal No-Hire Agreement
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH McALEAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. nCINO, INC. and LIVE OAK BANCSHARES, INC., Case No.
7:21-cv-47 (E.D.N.C., March 12, 2021) challenges an illegal
agreement between nCino, Live Oak Bank, and non-party Apiture LLC
to suppress competition for each other's employees (the "No-Hire
Agreement").

The No-Hire Agreement pertained to all employees of nCino and
Apiture, and employees in the software engineering department of
Live Oak Bank, employed in Wilmington, North Carolina. The express
purpose of the No-Hire Agreement was to prevent the companies from
having to pay competitive wages to attract and retain talent.

The No-Hire Agreement began as early as nCino's founding in 2011,
and has continued to the present. The No-Hire Agreement restrains
competition in the labor market and is per se unlawful under
federal and North Carolina law. The Plaintiff seeks damages for
violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and North Carolina
General Statutes.

The Plaintiff brings this action to recover treble damages, costs
of suit, and reasonable attorneys' fees, arising from the
Defendants' violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, and North
Carolina General Statutes.

Plaintiff Joseph McAlear is a citizen and resident of the State of
North Carolina. Mr. McAlear is a former employee of Live Oak Bank
and Apiture. He was injured in his business and property by reason
of the alleged violation.

Defendant nCino is a publicly-owned financial technology company
offering digital banking platforms to customers. It is
headquartered and has its principal place of business in
Wilmington, North Carolina. The Defendant Live Oak Bank is a
publicly-owned bank with a financial technology division.

Apiture is a private financial technology company offering digital
banking technology. It is a joint venture between Live Oak Bank and
First Data Corporation. Apiture's principal place of business is
Wilmington, North Carolina.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dean M. Harvey, Esq.
          Anne B. Shaver, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
          Telephone: (415) 956-1000
          Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
          E-mail: dharvey@lchb.com
                  ashaver@lchb.com

               - and -

          Robert M. Elliot, Esq.
          ELLIOT MORGAN PARSONAGE, PLLC
          426 Old Salem Rd.
          Brickenstein-Leinbach House
          Winston-Salem, NC 27101
          Telephone: (336) 724-2828
          Facsimile: (336) 724-3335
          E-mail: rmelliot@emplawfirm.com

NCR CORPORATION: Missreezadah Labor Suit Goes to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled EMAD MISSREEZADAH, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. NCR CORPORATION and DOES 1 through
50, inclusive, Case No. 21STCV01836, was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California in and for the County of Los
Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on April 2, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:21-cv-02886 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the
California Labor Code including failure to properly calculate and
pay minimum and overtime wages, failure to provide meal periods,
failure to provide rest periods, failure to comply with itemized
employee wage statement provisions, and failure to timely pay wages
due at termination.

NCR Corporation is a software company headquartered in Atlanta,
Georgia. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
         
         Stacey M. Cooper, Esq.
         Dorothy L. Black, Esq.
         JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
         225 Broadway, Suite 2000
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 573-4900
         Facsimile: (619) 573-4901
         E-mail: Stacey.cooper@jacksonlewis.com
                 Dorothy.black@jacksonlewis.com

NESTLE USA: Court Dismisses Walker Class Suit With Leave to Amend
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RENEE WALKER, Plaintiff v. NESTLE USA, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-723-L-BGS (S.D. Cal.), Judge M. James
Lorenz of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to
state a claim with leave to amend.

The putative consumer class action alleges deceptive product
labeling.  According to the operative complaint, the Defendant is
the world's largest food company and is best known for its
chocolate products.  It purchases approximately 414,000 tons of
cocoa annually.  The Plaintiff claims that the statements on the
Defendant's chocolate product labels are deceptive because they
falsely lead consumers to believe that the products were produced
in accordance with environmentally and socially responsible
standards, when they were not.  This includes references to the
"Nestle Cocoa Plan," "UTZ Certified" and "Sustainably Sourced," and
representations that Defendant "Supports farmers" and "helps
improve the lives of cocoa farmers."

The Plaintiff alleges she purchased Defendant's chocolate products
in reliance on the social and environmental benefits prominently
featured on the packaging and would not have purchased the products
had she known the representations were false.  According to her,
the labels are deceptive because Defendant sources its cocoa from
West African plantations which rely on child labor and child slave
labor, contribute to deforestation, and use other practices harmful
to the environment.

The Plaintiff alleges violations of the California Consumer Legal
Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code Section 1750 et seq., and the Unfair
Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sections 17200, et seq., on
her own behalf as well as on behalf of a putative nationwide class.
She seeks damages, restitution, disgorgement of profits, and
injunctive relief.

The Defendant moves for dismissal for failure to state a claim
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).  It claims
that the Plaintiff has not alleged which products she purchased and
when, what label statements she saw, and why she relied on them.

Contrary to the Plaintiff's protestations, Judge Lorenz finds that
the complaint does not identify the products she purchased.  The
Plaintiff also provided four photographs of product packages
bearing these labels.  However, nowhere in the operative complaint
does Plaintiff identify the product she purchased.  She does not
allege that she purchased any of the products shown in the
photographs.  Without this information it is impossible to infer
what was stated on the labels of the products she purchased, and
how the statements were presented on the labels.  The Plaintiff's
allegations are too general to identify the transaction at issue, a
fortiori, they are insufficient to meet the heightened pleading
standard under Rule 9(b).

The Plaintiff requests leave to amend.  Because the Plaintiff may
be able to identify the products she purchased, and when and where
she purchased them, leave to amend is granted.

In light of the foregoing, Judge Lorenz granted the Defendant's
motion to dismiss with leave to amend.  The Plaintiff will file an
amended complaint, if any, no later than April 19, 2021.  The
Defendant will file a response to the amended complaint, if any, no
later than the time set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
15(a)(3).

A full-text copy of the Court's March 30, 2021 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/2t997e6t from Leagle.com.


NETAPP INC: Derouin Appeals Securities Suit Dismissal to 9th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff WINSTON DEROUIN filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in his lawsuit styled Winston Derouin, et al. v. NetApp,
Inc., et al., Case No. 4:19-cv-04801-JST, in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, Oakland.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the case is a
class action on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired NetApp securities between May 22, 2019 and
August 1, 2019, and seeks to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges that throughout the
Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading
statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. As a
result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages.

The Plaintiff seeks a review of the Court's Order dated February
26, 2021, dismissing the case with prejudice.

The appellate case is captioned as Winston Derouin, et al. v.
NetApp, Inc., et al., Case No. 21-15566, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on March 30, 2021.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on April 6,
2021;

   -- Appellant's opening brief and excerpts of record shall be
filed on May 25, 2021;

   -- Appellee's answering brief and excerpts of record shall be
filed on June 24, 2021; and

   -- The optional appellant's reply brief shall be filed and
served within 21 days of service of the appellee's brief. [BN]

NTN BUZZTIME: Facing Carlson Putative Class Suit
------------------------------------------------
NTN Buzztime, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company is facing a
putative class action suit entitled, Carlson v. NTN Buzztime, Inc.

On March 5, 2021, the company and its directors were named as
defendants in a putative class action brought by a purported
stockholder in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware,
entitled Carlson v. NTN Buzztime, Inc., Case No. 2021-0193- (Del.
Ch. filed Mar. 5, 2021).

The action asserts claims for violations of Section 211(c) of the
Delaware General Corporation Law and our bylaws (and a concomitant
breach of fiduciary duty), alleging that the company failed to
conduct an annual meeting of stockholders within thirteen months of
the previous annual meeting of stockholders, which took place on
June 7, 2019.  

Plaintiff is requesting certification of a class, declaratory
relief, injunctive relief to compel an annual meeting of
stockholders, and fees and costs.  

The complaint does not yet appear to have been served upon any of
the defendants.  

NTN Buzztime said, "We expect this action will be rendered moot
upon our holding of our special meeting of stockholders on March
15, 2021."

Carlsbad, California-based NTN Buzztime, Inc., has been in the
business of social interactive entertainment for over 25 years. Its
primary source of revenue is its Buzztime Network, which focuses on
the distribution of interactive promotional television game network
programming, primarily to over 3,900 hospitality venues such as
restaurants and bars throughout North America.


NUTANIX INC: Hedvat Bid to Withdraw as Lead Plaintiff Granted
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nutanix, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended January 31, 2021, that the court granted
plaintiff Shimon Hedvat's motion to withdraw as lead plaintiff but
denied without prejudice his motion to substitute proposed new lead
plaintiffs.

Beginning on March 29, 2019, several purported securities class
actions were filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California against the company and two of its
officers.

The initial complaints generally alleged that the defendants made
false and misleading statements in violation of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5.

In July 2019, the court consolidated the actions into a single
action, and appointed a lead plaintiff, who then filed a
consolidated amended complaint. The action was brought on behalf of
those who purchased or otherwise acquired our stock between
November 30, 2017 and May 30, 2019, inclusive.

The defendants subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the Original
Complaint, which the court granted on March 9, 2020, while
providing the lead plaintiff leave to amend. On April 17, 2020, the
lead plaintiff filed a second amended complaint, again naming the
company and two of its officers as defendants.

The Current Complaint alleges the same class period, includes many
of the same factual allegations as the Original Complaint, and
again alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Exchange Act, as well as SEC Rule 10b-5. The Current
Complaint seeks monetary damages in an unspecified amount.

On September 11, 2020, the court denied the company's motion to
dismiss the Current Complaint and held that the lead plaintiff
adequately stated a claim with respect to certain statements
regarding the company's new customer growth and sales productivity.
The court held a case management conference on October 27, 2020 and
set a pretrial schedule for the case.

On January 27, 2021, lead plaintiff, Shimon Hedvat, filed a motion
to (i) withdraw as lead plaintiff and (ii) substitute proposed new
lead plaintiffs Jose Flores and the City of Miami Fire Fighters and
Police Officers Retirement Trust and approve their appointment of a
new co-lead counsel. Defendants filed an opposition on February 10,
2021, lead plaintiff filed a reply on February 17, 2021, and
defendants filed a response to lead plaintiff's reply on February
22, 2021.

On March 1, 2021, the court granted the lead plaintiff's motion to
withdraw as lead plaintiff but denied without prejudice his motion
to substitute proposed new lead plaintiffs.

The court also reopened the lead plaintiff selection process,
allowing any putative class member interested in serving as the new
lead plaintiff to file a lead plaintiff application within 21 days
of the order.

The litigation is still in early stages, and we plan to continue to
vigorously defend against the allegations and we are not able to
determine what, if any, liabilities will attach to the Current
Complaint.

Nutanix, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, develops and
provides an enterprise cloud platform in North America, Europe, the
Asia Pacific, the Middle East, Latin America, and Africa. The
company was founded in 2009 and is headquartered in San Jose,
California.

OBALON THERAPEUTICS: Hearing on $3.15MM Settlement Set for April 22
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Obalon Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 12, 2021, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the Final Settlement
Approval Hearing is set for April 22, 2021.

On February 14 and 22, 2018, plaintiff stockholders filed class
action lawsuits against the company and certain of its executive
officers in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California (Hustig v. Obalon Therapeutics, Inc., et
al., Case No. 3:18-cv-00352-AJB-WVG, and Cook v. Obalon
Therapeutics, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-00407-CAB-RBB).

On July 24, 2018, the court consolidated the lawsuits and appointed
Inter-Local Pension Fund GCC/IBT as lead plaintiff.

On October 5, 2018, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. The
amended complaint alleges that the company and certain of its
executive officers made false and misleading statements and failed
to disclose material adverse facts about our business, operations,
and prospects in violation of Sections 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act.

The amended complaint also alleges violations of Section 11 of the
Exchange Act arising out of the Company's initial public offering.


The plaintiffs seek damages, interest, costs, attorneys' fees, and
other unspecified equitable relief.

The underwriters from the company's initial public offering have
also been named as defendants in this case and the company had
certain obligations under the underwriting agreement to indemnify
them for their costs and expenses incurred in connection with this
litigation.

On September 25, 2019, the court granted in part and denied in part
the defendants' motion to dismiss. The court dismissed the Section
11 claims entirely, without leave to amend, and accordingly
dismissed the underwriters and certain directors from the case. The
Court also dismissed certain statements from the Section 10
claims.

On August 17, 2020, the parties submitted a final settlement
agreement of the securities class action for court approval.  

A hearing on final settlement approval is scheduled for April 22,
2021.  

The settlement provides for a payment of $3.15 million to the
plaintiffs, and provides that the defendants continue to deny the
allegations and claims asserted by the plaintiffs, and are entering
into the settlement solely to eliminate the burden and expense of
further litigation.

The Company expects that any amounts due as part of the settlement
will be covered by the Company's insurance policies.

Obalon Therapeutics, Inc., a vertically integrated medical device
company, focuses on developing and commercializing medical devices
to treat people who are obese and overweight. The company offers
the Obalon balloon system designed to provide weight loss in obese
patients. Obalon Therapeutics, Inc. was founded in 2008 and is
headquartered in Carlsbad, California.


ONE UP INNOVATIONS: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against One Up Innovations,
Inc. The case is styled as Ramon Jaquez, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. One Up Innovations, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-02847 (S.D.N.Y., April 2, 2021).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

One Up Innovations, Inc. -- http://www.liberator.com/-- is located
in Atlanta, GA, United States and is part of the Furniture
Manufacturing Industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
          MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC
          701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
          Asbury Park, NJ 07712
          Phone: (845) 367-7146
          Fax: (732) 298-6256
          Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com


OPTIO SOLUTIONS: Bush Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Optio Solutions, LLC.
The case is styled as Erica Bush, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Optio Solutions, LLC, Case No.
2:21-cv-01880 (E.D.N.Y., April 7, 2021).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

Optio Solutions, LLC -- https://www.optiosolutions.com/ -- is a
full service collection agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David M. Barshay, Esq.
          BARSHAY, RIZZO & LOPEZ, PLLC
          445 Broadhollow Road, Suite Cl18
          Melville, NY 11747
          Phone: (631) 210-7272
          Fax: (516) 706-5055
          Email: dbarshay@brlfirm.com


ORACLE CORP: Bid to Dismiss Stockholder Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------
Oracle Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended February 28, 2021, that the motion to
dismiss filed in the putative class action suit related to the
company's cloud business, is pending.

On August 10, 2018, a putative class action, brought by an alleged
stockholder of Oracle, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California against the company, its Chief
Technology Officer, its then-two Chief Executive Officers, two
other Oracle executives, and one former Oracle executive.

Mr. Mark Hurd, one of the company's then-two Chief Executive
Officers, passed away on October 18, 2019. On March 8, 2019,
plaintiff filed an amended complaint.

Plaintiff alleges that the defendants made or are responsible for
false and misleading statements regarding Oracle's cloud business.
Plaintiff further alleges that the former Oracle executive engaged
in insider trading.

Plaintiff seeks a ruling that this case may proceed as a class
action, and seeks damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and
unspecified declaratory/injunctive relief.

On April 19, 2019, the defendants moved to dismiss plaintiff's
amended complaint. On December 17, 2019, the court granted this
motion, giving plaintiffs an opportunity to file an amended
complaint, which plaintiff filed on February 17, 2020. On April 23,
2020, defendants filed a motion to dismiss, and the court held a
hearing on this motion on September 24, 2020.

The court has not yet ruled on this motion.  

Oracle said, "We believe that we have meritorious defenses against
this action, and we will continue to vigorously defend it."

Oracle Corporation develops, manufactures, markets, sells, hosts,
and supports application, platform, and infrastructure solutions
for information technology (IT) environments worldwide. The company
provides services in three layers of the cloud: Software as a
Service, Platform as a Service, and Infrastructure as a Service.
The company was founded in 1977 and is headquartered in Redwood
City, California.


ORRSTOWN FINANCIAL: Appeal in SEPTA Initiated Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Orrstown Financial Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 15,
2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the appeal
on the Court's decision in issuing an Order and Memorandum granting
The Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority's (SEPTA)
motion for leave to file a third amended complaint, is pending.

On May 25, 2012, SEPTA filed a putative class action complaint in
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
against the Company, the Bank and certain current and former
directors and officers.

The complaint alleged, among other things, that (i) in connection
with the Company's Registration Statement on Form S-3 dated
February 23, 2010 and its Prospectus Supplement dated March 23,
2010, and (ii) during the purported class period of March 24, 2010
through October 27, 2011, the Company issued materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's lending practices and
financial results, including misleading statements concerning the
stringent nature of the Bank's credit practices and underwriting
standards, the quality of its loan portfolio, and the intended use
of the proceeds from the Company's March 2010 public offering of
common stock.

The complaint asserted claims under Sections 11, 12(a) and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, and sought class certification, unspecified money
damages, interest, costs, fees and equitable or injunctive relief.
Under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995
("PSLRA"), the Court appointed SEPTA Lead Plaintiff on August 20,
2012.

On March 4, 2013, SEPTA filed an amended complaint. The amended
complaint expanded the list of defendants in the action to include
the Company's former independent registered public accounting firm,
Smith Elliott Kearns & Company, LLC ("SEK"), and the underwriters
of the Company's March 2010 public offering of common stock. In
addition, among other things, the amended complaint extended the
purported 1934 Exchange Act class period from March 15, 2010
through April 5, 2012.

On June 22, 2015, in a 96-page Memorandum, the Court dismissed
without prejudice SEPTA's amended complaint against all defendants,
finding that SEPTA failed to state a claim under either the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended. On February 8, 2016, the Court granted SEPTA's
motion for leave to amend again and SEPTA filed its second amended
complaint that same day.

On December 7, 2016, the Court issued an Order and Memorandum
granting in part and denying in part defendants' motions to dismiss
SEPTA's second amended complaint.

The Court granted the motions to dismiss the Securities Act claims
against all defendants, and granted the motions to dismiss the
Exchange Act Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claims against all
defendants except Orrstown Financial Services, Inc., Orrstown Bank,
Thomas R. Quinn, Jr., Bradley S. Everly, and Jeffrey W. Embly.

The Court also denied the motions to dismiss the Exchange Act
Section 20(a) claims against Quinn, Everly, and Embly.

On December 15, 2017, the Orrstown Defendants and SEPTA exchanged
expert reports in opposition to and in support of class
certification, respectively. On January 15, 2018, the parties
exchanged expert rebuttal reports. SEPTA has not yet filed a motion
for class certification.

On August 9, 2018, SEPTA filed a motion to compel the production of
Confidential Supervisory Information (CSI) of non-parties the Board
of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (FRB) and the
Pennsylvania Department of Banking and Securities, in the
possession of Orrstown and third parties. On August 30, 2018, the
FRB filed an unopposed motion to intervene in the Action for the
purpose of opposing SEPTA's motion to compel.

On February 12, 2019, the Court denied SEPTA's motion to compel the
production of CSI on the ground that SEPTA had failed to exhaust
its administrative remedies.

On April 11, 2019, SEPTA filed a motion for leave to file a third
amended complaint. The proposed third amended complaint seeks to
reassert the Securities Act claims that the Court dismissed as to
all defendants on December 7, 2016, when the Court granted in part
and denied in part defendants' motions to dismiss SEPTA's second
amended complaint.

The proposed third amended complaint also seeks to reassert the
Exchange Act claims against those defendants that the Court
dismissed from the case on December 7, 2016.

On June 13, 2019, Orrstown filed a motion for protective order to
stay discovery pending resolution of SEPTA's motion for leave to
file a third amended complaint. On July 17, 2019, the Court entered
an Order partially granting Orrstown's motion for protective order,
ruling that all deposition discovery in the case was stayed pending
a decision on SEPTA's motion for leave to file a third amended
complaint. Party and non-party document discovery in the case has
largely been completed.

On February 14, 2020, the Court issued an Order and Memorandum
granting SEPTA's motion for leave to file a third amended
complaint. The third amended complaint is now the operative
complaint.

It reinstates the Orrstown Defendants, as well as SEK and the
underwriter defendants, previously dismissed from the case on
December 7, 2016. The third amended complaint also revives the
previously-dismissed 1933 Securities Act claim against the Orrstown
Defendants, SEK, and the underwriter defendants. Defendants filed
their motions to dismiss the third amended complaint on April 24,
2020. SEPTA's opposition was filed on July 8, 2020, and Orrstown's
reply brief was filed on August 12, 2020. The motions to dismiss
the third amended complaint are currently pending.

Additionally, on February 24, 2020, the Orrstown Defendants, and
the underwriter defendants and SEK, separately filed motions under
28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b) asking the District Court to certify its
February 14, 2020 Order granting leave to file the third amended
complaint for interlocutory appeal to the Third Circuit Court of
Appeals. The District Court granted those motions on July 17, 2020,
and defendants filed their Petition for Permission to Appeal with
the Third Circuit on July 27, 2020.

The Third Circuit granted permission to appeal the Order pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b) on August 13, 2020. Defendants filed
their joint Opening Brief in the Third Circuit on November 2, 2020,
asking the Court to reverse the district court's Order. SEPTA filed
its responsive brief on December 2, 2020 and defendants filed their
reply brief on December 23, 2020. Oral argument was held on
February 10, 2021. The Third Circuit's decision is pending.

The Company believes that the allegations of SEPTA's third amended
complaint are without merit and intends to defend itself vigorously
against those claims. It is not possible at this time to reasonably
estimate possible losses, or even a range of reasonably possible
losses, in connection with the litigation.

Orrstown Financial Services, Inc. operates as the holding company
for Orrstown Bank that provides commercial banking and trust
services in the United States. The company provides its banking and
bank-related services through branches located in Berks,
Cumberland, Dauphin, Franklin, Lancaster, Perry, and York counties
of Pennsylvania, as well as Washington County, Maryland. Orrstown
Financial Services, Inc. was founded in 1919 and is headquartered
in Shippensburg, Pennsylvania.

OTELCO INC: Continues to Defend Plumley Putative Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Otelco Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues to
defend a purported class action suit entitled, Patrick Plumley v.
Otelco Inc. et. al., No. 1:20-cv-01165-UNA.

On July 27, 2020, the company filed a Current Report on Form 8-K
with the Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the
proposed acquisition of the Company by Future Fiber FinCo, Inc., a
Delaware corporation ("Parent"), pursuant to an Agreement and Plan
of Merger, dated as of July 26, 2020 by and among the Company,
Parent and Olympus Merger Sub, Inc., a Delaware corporation and a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent providing for the merger of
Merger Sub with and into the Company, with the Company continuing
as the surviving corporation of the Merger and a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Parent.

On August 20, 2020, the company filed with the SEC its preliminary
proxy statement on Schedule 14A, and on September 9, 2020, the
company filed with the SEC its definitive proxy statement on
Schedule 14A, in each case relating to the special meeting of
stockholders of the Company that was held on October 9, 2020 to,
among other things, vote on a proposal to adopt the Merger
Agreement.

On October 9, 2020, the company's stockholders adopted the Merger
Agreement and approved the Merger. The transaction is now expected
to close in the second quarter of 2021, following federal and state
regulatory approvals.

On September 1, 2020, a purported stockholder of Otelco filed a
putative stockholder class action lawsuit, captioned Patrick
Plumley v. Otelco Inc. et. al., No. 1:20-cv-01165-UNA, in the
United States District Court for the District of Delaware, on
behalf of all public stockholders of Otelco against the Company and
the members of its Board of Directors.

Thereafter, on September 21, 2020, another purported stockholder of
Otelco filed a separate individual lawsuit, captioned Jacob
Scheiner IRA v. Otelco Inc., et al., 1:20-cv-07756-AJN, in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.


The Actions generally allege that the Preliminary Proxy Statement
or the Definitive Proxy Statement omits certain material
information in violation of Section 14(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, and
further that the members of the Company's Board of Directors are
liable for those omissions under Section 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

The relief sought in the Actions includes a preliminary and
permanent injunction to prevent the completion of the Merger,
rescission or rescissory damages if the Merger is completed, costs
and attorneys' fees. Both lawsuits have subsequently been
withdrawn.

While Otelco believes that the disclosures set forth in the
Preliminary Proxy Statement and Definitive Proxy Statement complied
fully with applicable law, to resolve the alleged stockholders'
claims and moot the disclosure claims, to avoid nuisance, potential
expense, and delay and to provide additional information to the
company's stockholders, the Company voluntarily supplemented the
Definitive Proxy Statement with additional disclosures filed with
the SEC on October 1, 2020.

Nothing in the supplemental disclosures shall be deemed an
admission of the legal necessity or materiality under applicable
law of any of the disclosures set forth therein or in the
Definitive Proxy Statement. On the contrary, the Company denied all
allegations that any additional disclosure was, or is, required.

Otelco Inc. operates 11 rural local exchange carriers serving
subscribers in north central Alabama, central and southern Maine,
western Massachusetts, central Missouri, western Vermont, and
southern West Virginia. The Oneonta, Alabama-based Company is the
sole wireline telephone services provides for three of the rural
communities it serves.


PARETEUM CORP: Loskot Putative Class Suit Underway
--------------------------------------------------
Pareteum Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 12, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues to
defend a putative class action suit entitled, Douglas Loskot v.
Pareteum Corporation, et al.

Douglas Loskot v. Pareteum Corporation, et al., is a putative class
action pending in the Superior Court of California, County of San
Mateo. It was filed on May 29, 2020 on behalf of all former
shareholders of iPass Inc. who received shares of the Company's
common stock pursuant to a February 12, 2019 exchange tender offer.
The defendants are the Company, Robert H. Turner, Edward O'Donnell,
Victor Bozzo, Yves van Sante, Robert Lippert and Luis
Jimenez-Tunon.

The Complaint alleges that the defendants caused the Company to
issue materially false or misleading statements in SEC filings
submitted in connection with the tender offer in violation of
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act.

Pareteum Corporation formerly known as Elephant Talk
Communications, Inc., is an international provider of business
software and services to the telecommunications and financial
services industry. Pareteum Corporation is based in New York, New
York.

PARK SOUTH: Tejeda Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
------------------------------------------------------
MIGUEL TEJEDA, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and
the Class v. PARK SOUTH HOTEL LLC d/b/a COVINA d/b/a ROOF AT PARK
SOUTH d/b/a O YA, Case No. 1:21-cv-02236 (S.D.N.Y., March 15, 2021)
seeks to recover unpaid wages, including overtime, due to a fixed
salary, unpaid wages due to invalid tip credit, liquidated damages,
and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor Law.

In October 2019, the Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant and/or
its predecessors, as applicable, to work as a busboy for the
Defendant's Covina Restaurant, located at 127 East 27th Street, New
York. The Plaintiff contends that he worked for the Defendant until
March 2020. Although he worked at COVINA throughout his employment,
he communicated with co-workers who informed him that the Defendant
directed them to work at Defendant's other two Restaurants.
Throughout his employment with the Defendant, he was regularly
scheduled to work from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., five days per week.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant knowingly and willfully
operated its business with a policy of not paying either the FLSA
minimum wage or the New York State minimum wage, and the proper
overtime rate thereof for hours worked over 40 in a workweek, to
Plaintiff, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and Class Members.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          Anne Seelig, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor
          New York, NY 10011
          Telephone: (212) 465-1188
          Facsimile: (212) 465-1181

PATHFINDER BANK: Claflin Files Suit in New York
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pathfinder Bank. The
case is styled as Lawrence Chryl Claflin, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Pathfinder Bank, Case No.
5:21-cv-00380-TJM-ML (N.D.N.Y., April 2, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Banks and Banking for National
Consumer Cooperative Bank: Suits by or against Bank.

Pathfinder Bank -- https://www.pathfinderbank.com/ -- offers a wide
array of financial services with 10 conveniently located branch
offices located throughout Onondaga & Oswego Counties.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
          Sophia Goren Gold, Esq.
          KALIEL GOLD PLLC
          1100 15th Street NW-4th Floor
          Washington, DC 20005
          Phone: (202) 615-3948
          Email: jkaliel@kalielgold.com
                 sgold@kalielpllc.com


PIZZA 21 LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ackerley Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------
HOLLIE ACKERLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PIZZA 21 LLC d/b/a "'Domino's Pizza"'; and
STAN GAGE, Defendants, Case No. 4:21-cv-00036-M (E.D.N.C., Mar. 29,
2021) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and
overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Ackerley was employed by the Defendants a delivery
driver.

PIZZA 21 LLC owns and operates Domino's Pizza franchise stores.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jacob J. Modla, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JASON E. TAYLOR
          115 Elk Ave.
          Rock Hill, SC 29730
          Tel: (803) 328-0898
          E-mail: jmodla@jasonetaylor.com


PREMIER ENVIRONMENTAL: Smith et al. Sue Over Underpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
SHAWN SMITH and JODY COTTONGIN, each individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PREMIER ENVIRONMENTAL
SERVICES, INC., and SAM McFADIN, Defendants, Case No.
4:21-cv-00232-DPM (E.D. Ark., March 24, 2021) brings this complaint
as a collective action complaint against the Defendants for its
alleged violations of the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the overtime provisions of the Arkansas Minimum
Wage Act.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as Drillers and
Locators and classified them as hourly employees, non-exempt from
the overtime requirements.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants failed to pay them and
other similarly situated Drillers and Locators for all hours they
worked, including overtime premiums at the rate of one and one-half
times their regular rates of pay. Although they submitted their
timesheets to the Defendants, their paystubs reflected fewer hours
than their submitted timesheets because the Defendants allegedly
shaved so many hours from their time. As a result, the Plaintiffs
and other Drillers and Locators received less than a lawful minimum
wage for all hours worked, the suit says.

Moreover, the Defendants and Plaintiffs entered into an agreement
under which the Defendant was to pay the Plaintiffs
nondiscretionary bonuses based on how many feet of pipe they laid
for the Defendant. However, the Defendants did not always pay the
Plaintiffs the bonuses they earned. In addition, the Defendants
failed to include the nondiscretionary bonuses that the Plaintiffs
and other Drillers and Locators received in their regular rate when
calculating their overtime premiums, added the suit.

The Plaintiffs seek to recover damages from the Defendants, for
themselves and other similarly situated Drillers and Locators,
specifically minimum wage damages, overtime premiums, liquidated
damages, damages equal to bonuses, attorney's fees and litigation
costs, and other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

Premier Environmental Services, Inc. operates a utilities and
drilling company owned by Sam McFadin. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Josh Sanford, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          Kirkpatrick Plaza
          10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Tel: (501) 221-0088
          Fax: (888) 787-2040
          E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


PRESSLER & FELT: Faces Silverman FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pressler, Felt &
Warshaw, LLP. The case is captioned as Silverman v. Pressler, Felt
& Warshaw, LLP f/k/a Pressler & Pressler, LLP, Case No.
7:21-cv-02246-CS (S.D.N.Y., March 15, 2021).

The suit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act involving consumer credit.

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Cathy Seibel.

Pressler is a debt collection firm.[BN]

Plaintiff David Silverman, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, is represented by:

          Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
          BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC
          100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 203-7600
          Facsimile: (516) 281-7601
          E-mail: csanders@barshaysanders.com

PRESTIGE PLUMBING: Lee Seeks Plumbers' Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
The case, KURTIS LEE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PRESTIGE PLUMBING & HEATING INC.,
and ROBERT BRUNO, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-01572 (E.D.N.Y.,
March 24, 2021) arises from the Defendant's alleged unlawful
employment policies, practices, and procedures that violated the
Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Laws, and the Internal
Revenue Code.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a plumber from on or
around January 28, 2014 to on or around July 6, 2018.

The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants automatically deducted an
hour per day from his wages for a full hour of break time per day
that he was not afforded, and did not compensate him for the time
he spent collecting the company vehicle and loading necessary
equipment at the beginning of the day, and returning the company
vehicle and equipment at the end of the day. As a result, despite
routinely working in excess of 40 hours per week, the Defendants
allegedly failed to pay him overtime compensation at the rate of
one and one-half times his regular hourly rate for the hours he
worked in excess of 40 per week.

Moreover, the Defendants failed to provide the Plaintiff a payroll
notice at the time of his hire, or at any time thereafter, and
failed to provide him with an accurate wage statement each wage
payment. Additionally, the Defendants reported fraudulent
information to the United States Internal Revenue Service, the suit
adds.

The Plaintiff brings this complaint seeking equitable and legal
relief from the Defendants for all overtime wages due to him and
other similarly situated employees, as well as liquidated damages,
reasonable attorneys' fees, interest, cost and disbursements, and
other relief as is just and proper.

Prestige Plumbing & Heating Inc. provides plumbing and heating
services. Robert Bruno is the owner of the company. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nicola Ciliotta, Esq.
          KATZ MELINGER PLLC
          280 Madison Avenue, Suite 600
          New York, NY 10016
          Tel: (212) 460-0047
          E-mail: nciliotta@katzmelinger.com


PROCTORU INC: Thakkar Sues Over Illegal Collection of Biometrics
----------------------------------------------------------------
RUTVIK THAKKAR, WILLIAM GONIGAM, and ANDREA KOHLENBERG,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
PROCTORU INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-02051-CSB-EIL (C.D. Ill., March 12,
2020) is a class action suit brought against ProctorU for
violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act.

The Plaintiffs bring this action for damages and other legal and
equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of Defendant
in collecting, storing and using their and other similarly situated
individuals' biometric identifiers and biometric information. The
Plaintiffs contend that the Defendant failed to provide the
requisite data retention and destruction policies, and failed to
properly "store, transmit, and protect from disclosure" these
biometrics, in direct violation of BIPA.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs are students who used
ProctorU. During Plaintiffs' use of the software, ProctorU
collected their biometrics, including eye movements and facial
expressions (i.e., face geometry) and keystroke biometrics. Because
Defendant did not take the proper steps to safeguard Plaintiffs'
biometrics, the Defendant was subject to a data breach. Further,
the Defendant does not sufficiently specify how long it will retain
biometric information, or when it will delete such information.
Accordingly, the only reasonable conclusion is that the Defendant
has not, and will not, destroy biometric data when the initial
purpose for collecting or obtaining such data has been satisfied,
the suit says.

The Defendant develops, owns, and operates an eponymous online
proctoring software that collects biometric information.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Carl V. Malmstrom, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER
          FREEMAN & HERZ LLC
          111 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1700
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 984-0000
          Facsimile: (212) 686-0114
          E-mail: malmstrom@whafh.com

               - and -

          Alec M. Leslie, Esq.
          Max S. Roberts, Esq.
          Christopher R. Reilly, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Avenue, Third Floor
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (646) 837-7150
          Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
          E-mail: aleslie@bursor.com
                  mroberts@bursor.com
                  creilly@bursor.com

PURPLE BIOTECH: Evidentiary Hearing in Tel Aviv Suit Set for July 8
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Purple Biotech Ltd. said in its Form 20-F/A report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that an evidentiary hearing
has been scheduled for July 8, 2021, in the putative class action
suit pending before the Tel Aviv District Court (Economic
Division).

In December 2015, a lawsuit and a motion to approve such lawsuit as
a class action was filed in the Tel Aviv District Court (Economic
Division) against the Company and its directors by shareholders who
were holding the Company's Tel Aviv Stock Exchange listed
securities before the Company's initial public offering in the
United States that took place in November 2015, claiming damages
for the purported class in the motion totaling NIS 16.4 million
(USD 4.3 million) due to the U.S. IPO.

In addition to this amount, the petitioners in the motion are
seeking remedies in order to redress discrimination against the
purported class owing to the dilution caused by the public
offering, including the possibility that the purported class should
be awarded from the Company amounts reflecting the losses of the
purported class from a possible price increase in our shares
following the announcement of the Phase III clinical trial results.
The Company delivered its response to the court.

A preliminary hearing was held by the court on September 12, 2016
and subsequently the court set a schedule for the submission by the
petitioners of a motion for discovery, and any responses to such
motion. Additional preliminary hearings were held during 2017.

On October 24, 2017, the court issued a ruling to stay proceedings
in this matter until January 15, 2018 due to the ongoing  Israeli
Securities Authority (ISA) Investigation.

At the request of the ISA, this stay was subsequently extended
several times by the court. Following approval of the Enforcement
Arrangement in connection with the ISA Investigation, the stay was
lifted. An evidentiary hearing has been scheduled for July 8,
2021.

Purple Biotech Ltd. operates as a pharmaceutical company. The
Company discovers and develops medicines, drugs, and other
pharmaceutical products for the treatment of osteoarthritis pain
and hypertension. Purple Biotech serves customers globally. The
company is based in Israel.

PURPLE BIOTECH: Mediation Ongoing in Tel Aviv Putative Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Purple Biotech Ltd. said in its Form 20-F/A report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that mediation is ongoing in
the putative class action suit currently pending in the Tel Aviv
District Court (Economic Division).

In February 2017 the Company announced that the Israeli Securities
Authority (the "ISA") has begun a formal investigation into,
amongst other matters, the Company's public disclosures around
certain aspects of the studies related to its therapeutic
candidate, Consensi.

In February 2017, four lawsuits and motions to approve the lawsuits
as a class action lawsuit were filed against the Company and
certain of its office holders at the Tel Aviv District Court
(Economic Division), with each Motion relating to the ISA
Investigation.

One of these motions was subsequently withdrawn. The petitioners in
one of the motions petitioned the court to dismiss the other two of
the 2017 Motions. On December 19, 2017, the court granted the
Petition for Dismissal and dismissed the other remaining 2017
Motions. The remaining motion was filed against the Company, the
Company's executive directors and certain of its present and former
directors, by certain shareholders who are requesting to act as
representatives of all shareholders of record from December 10,
2015 until February 6, 2017.

The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the Company
included misleading information in its public filings which caused
the class for which the plaintiffs are seeking recognition an
aggregate loss of approximately NIS 29 million (approximately USD 9
million).

The court ordered a stay of proceedings due to the then-ongoing ISA
Investigation.

Following approval of the Enforcement Arrangement in connection
with the ISA Investigation, the stay was lifted.

On May 29, 2020, the petitioners in the Surviving Motion filed an
amended lawsuit and motion to approve the lawsuit as a class
action. On November 15, 2020 the respondents filed their responses
to the amended motion to approve the lawsuit as a class action.

After filling such responses, the court suggested that both parties
resort to mediation, without admitting or accepting the other
party's claim. Both parties accepted such suggestion.

Purple Biotech said, "We expect that the mediation will be
commenced shortly."

The Company rejects the claims in the Surviving Motion. At this
preliminary stage the Company is unable, with any degree of
certainty, to make any evaluations or any assessments with respect
to the Surviving Motion as to the probability of success or the
scope of potential exposure, if any. Therefore, no provision for
this matter was recorded in these financial statements.

Purple Biotech Ltd. operates as a pharmaceutical company. The
Company discovers and develops medicines, drugs, and other
pharmaceutical products for the treatment of osteoarthritis pain
and hypertension. Purple Biotech serves customers globally. The
company is based in Israel.


QUALSCRIPT LLC: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, O'Dell Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jana O'Dell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Qualscript, LLC, Gayle Faggetti, and Pat McCarver, Case
No. 4:21-cv-00260-LPR (E.D. Ark., Apr. 5, 2021) seeks declaratory
judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment
interest and cost, including reasonable attorneys' fees as a result
of the Defendants' failure to pay the Plaintiff and all others
similarly situated overtime compensation for all hours worked in
excess of 40 per week.

The Defendant's failed to pay the Plaintiff and all others
similarly situated the applicable minimum wage for hours worked up
to 40, and the 1.5x base hourly rate for each hour worked over 40
each week under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas
Minimum Wage Act, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is employed by the Defendant as medical
transcriptionist since July 2013 to the present.

Gayle Faggetti and Pat McCarver own Qualscript LLC which offers
medical transcription services and speech recognition services
utilizing technology which includes internet-based platform of
dictation, transcription and delivery.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          April Rheaume, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          Kirkpatrick Plaza
          10800 Financial Centre Parkway, Suite 510
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Telephone: (501) 221-0088
          Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
          E-mail: april@sanfordlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Josh Sanford, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          Kirkpatrick Plaza
          10800 Financial Centre Parkway, Suite 510
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Telephone: (501) 221-0088
          Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
          E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com

QUOTEWIZARD.COM LLC: 1st Cir. Appeal Filed in Mantha TCPA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant QuoteWizard.com, LLC filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit styled JOSEPH MANTHA, on behalf of himself
and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. QUOTEWIZARD.COM, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-12235-LTS, in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Massachusetts, Boston.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the case is a
putative consumer class action brought against Defendant
QuoteWizard under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"),
47 U.S.C. Section 227. On Feb. 24, 2021, Judge Sorokin overruled
QuoteWizard's Objection to a discovery order issued by Chief
Magistrate Judge Kelley. QuoteWizard has moved for reconsideration
of that ruling.

Judge Leo T. Sorokin denied QuoteWizard's Motion for
Reconsideration.

The Defendant seeks a review of the Court's Order.

The appellate case is captioned as Mantha v. QuoteWizard.com, LLC,
Case No. 21-1249, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
First Circuit, filed on March 30, 2021. [BN]

Defendant-Appellant QUOTEWIZARD.COM, LLC is represented by:

          Christine Kingston, Esq.
          Kevin Patrick Polansky, Esq.
          NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH LLP
          1 Financial Center, 35th Flr.
          Boston, MA 02111
          Telephone: (617) 217-4700
          E-mail: christine.kingston@nelsonmullins.com
                  kevin.polansky@nelsonmullins.com    

Plaintiff-Appellee JOSEPH MANTHA, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, is represented by:

          Edward A. Broderick, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF EDWARD A. BRODERICK
          208 Ridge St.
          Winchester, MA 01890
          Telephone: (617) 738-7080
          E-mail: ted@broderick-law.com

               - and -

          Matthew P. McCue, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW P. MCCUE
          1 South Ave
          Natick, MA 01760
          Telephone: (508) 655-1415
          E-mail: mmccue@massattorneys.net  

               - and -

          Anthony Paronich, Esq.
          PARONICH LAW PC
          350 Lincoln St., Ste 2400
          Hingham, MA 02043
          Telephone: (508) 221-1510
          E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com  

               - and -

          Alex M. Washkowitz, Esq.
          CW LAW GROUP, PC
          188 Oaks Rd
          Framingham, MA 01702
          Telephone: (508) 309-4880
          E-mail: alex@cwlawgrouppc.com

RED CRAB: Wisdom Seeks Minimum Wages & Overtime Under FLSA, NYLL
----------------------------------------------------------------
DAVANIA WISDOM, on behalf of herself, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly-situated v. RED CRAB LONG ISLAND INC., and
JOYCE WANG, individually, Case No. 2:21-cv-01375 (E.D.N.Y., March
15, 2021) is a civil action for damages and equitable relief based
upon the Defendants' violations of the Plaintiff's rights
guaranteed to her by the minimum wage and overtime provisions of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff worked for Defendants -- a Nassau County restaurant
and one of its owners / its day-to-day overseer -- as a bartender
from August 11, 2019 until March 9, 2020. She contends that
Defendants failed to pay her the overtime wages lawfully due to her
under the FLSA and the NYLL and the minimum wages due under the
NYLL.

Specifically, the Defendants routinely required her to work beyond
40 hours in a workweek but paid her at her straight-time rate of
pay -- which fell below New York's minimum wage for most of her
employment -- for all hours worked, and thus failed to pay
Plaintiff at the rate of one and one-half times her regular rate,
or one and one-half times the minimum wage rate, if greater, for
any of the hours that Plaintiff worked in a week in excess of 40,
the Plaintiff adds.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael R. Minkoff, Esq.
          Alexander T. Coleman, Esq.
          Michael J. Borrelli, Esq.
          BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C.
          655 Third Avenue, Suite 1821
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 679-5000
          Facsimile: (212) 679-5005

RENEWABLE ENERGY: Faces Olson Securities Suit Over Share Price Drop
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CHRIS OLSON, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. RENEWABLE ENERGY GROUP,INC., RANDOLPH L. HOWARD,
CYNTHIA J. WARNER, CHAD STONE, and TODD ROBINSON, Case No.
2:21-cv-02244 (C.D. Cal., March 12, 2021) is a class action on
behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired
Renewable Energy securities between May 3, 2018 and February 25,
2021, inclusive (the Class Period pursuing claims against the the
Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On February 25, 2021, after the market closed, Renewable Energy
issued a press release announcing its fourth quarter and full year
2020 financial results. The Company revealed that it would restate
"$38.2 million in cumulative revenue from January 2018  through
September 30, 2020" because Renewable Energy was not the "proper
claimant for certain BTC payments on biodiesel it sold between
January 1, 2017 and September 30, 2020." Renewable Energy further
stated that it had reached an agreement with the Internal Revenue
Service "on a $40.5 million assessment, excluding interest" to
correct these claims.

On this news, the Company's share price fell $8.17, or 9.5%, over
two consecutive trading sessions to close at $77.77 per share on
February 26, 2021, on unusually heavy trading volume.

Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants allegedly made
materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to
disclose to investors that due to failures in the diesel additive
system, petroleum diesel was not periodically added to certain
loads by the Company and was instead added by the Company's
customers.

As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages.

Plaintiff Chris Olson purchased Renewable Energy securities during
the Class Period, and suffered damages as a result of the federal
securities law violations and alleged false and/or misleading
statements and/or material omissions.

Renewable Energy provides clean, low carbon transportation fuels.
It is North America's largest producer of advanced biofuels. The
biodiesel tax credit (BTC) is a federal biodiesel mixture excise
tax credit whereby the first person to blend pure biomass-based
diesel with petroleum-based diesel fuel receives a $1.00-per-gallon
refundable tax credit. It is an incentive shared across the
advanced biofuel production and distribution chain through routine,
daily trading and negotiation. The BTC was first implemented on
January 1, 2005, but has been allowed to lapse and then been
reinstated, sometimes retrospectively. In February 2018, the BTC
was retroactively reinstated for 2017, but was not reinstated for
2018. In December 2019, the BTC was retroactively reinstated for
2018 and 2019 and made effective from January 2020 through December
2022. The Individual Defendants are officers of the company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (310) 405-7190
          Facsimile: (917) 463-1044
          E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
          BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ &
          GROSSMAN, LLC
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
          New York, New York 10165
          Telephone: (212) 697-6484
          Facsimile: (212) 697-7296
          E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com

ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Cezana Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Sagi Cezana, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Robinhood Financial LLC, a Delaware
Corporation; Robinhood Securities, a Delaware Corporation;
Robinhood Markets Inc.; Case No. 4:21-cv-00759, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida on April 6, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-21315-CMA to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Contract.

Robinhood Financial LLC -- https://robinhood.com/ -- operates as an
institutional brokerage company. The Company provides online and
mobile application-based discount stock brokerage solutions that
allows users to invests in publicly-traded companies and
exchange-traded funds.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kurt David Kessler, Esq.
          Ling Yue Kuang, Esq.
          William M. Audet, Esq.
          AUDET & PARTNERS LLP
          711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500
          San Francisco, CA 94102-3275
          Phone: (415) 568-2555
          Email: kkessler@audetlaw.com
                 lkuang@audetlaw.com
                 waudet@audetlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Carl Brandon Wisoff, Esq.
          Eric D. Monek Anderson, Esq.
          FARELLA BRAUN & MARTEL LLP
          235 Montgomery Street, 17th floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Phone: (415) 954-4400
          Email: bwisoff@fbm.com
                 EMonekAnderson@fbm.com


ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Daniels Suit Moved From D. Colo. to S.D. Fla.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled CHANCE DANIELS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL, LLC, ROBINHOOD
SECURITIES, LLC, ROBINHOOD MARKETS, INC., TD AMERITRADE, INC.,
CITADEL SECURITIES, LLC, CHARLES SCHWAB & CO., INC., INTERACTIVE
BROKERS, LLC, OPEN TO THE PUBLIC INVESTING, INC., and WEBULL
FINANCIAL, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-00290, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida on April 2,
2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-21261-CMA to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged breach of contract,
breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing,
negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment,
non-disclosure or concealment, intentional and negligent
interference with prospective economic advantage, and violation of
15 U.S.C. Section 78 by removing numerous stocks from their trading
platforms thereby depriving retail investors of the ability to
invest in the open-market.

Robinhood Financial LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Robinhood
Markets, Inc., with its principal place of business at 85 Willow
Road, Menlo Park, California.

Robinhood Securities, LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Robinhood
Markets, Inc., with its principal place of business at 500 Colonial
Center Parkway, Suite 100, Lake Mary, Florida.

Robinhood Markets, Inc. is an online brokerage firm, with its
principal place of business at 85 Willow Road, Menlo Park,
California.

TD Ameritrade, Inc. is a financial services company, with its
principal place of business located at 717 17th Street, Denver,
Colorado.

Citadel Securities, LLC is an American multinational hedge fund and
financial services company located at 425 Park Avenue, New York,
New York.

Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. is an American multinational financial
services company located at 9800 Schwab Way, Lone Tree, Colorado.

Interactive Brokers, LLC is an American multinational brokerage
firm located at 2 Pickwick Plaza, Greenwich, Connecticut.

Open to the Public Investing, Inc. is a broker-dealer located at 1
State Street, New York, New York.

Webull Financial, LLC is a brokerage services company located at 2
Pickwick Plaza, Greenwich, Connecticut. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
         
         Kevin S. Hannon, Esq.
         THE HANNON LAW FIRM, LLC
         1641 Downing Street
         Denver, CO 80218
         Telephone: (303) 861-8800
         Facsimile: (303) 861-8855
         E-mail: khannon@hannonlaw.com

ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Diamond Suit Moved From M.D. to S.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JONATHAN DIAMOND, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL, LLC, ROBINHOOD
SECURITIES, LLC, ROBINHOOD MARKETS, INC., and JOHN DOES 1-10, Case
No. 6:21-cv-00207, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Florida to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida on April 2, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-21263-CMA to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged fraud, market
manipulation, breach of contract, negligence, and violations of the
Sherman Act and California Unfair Competition Law by manipulating
the stock market through (a) picking and choosing which stocks its
users could buy and sell, (b) limiting users to only selling
certain stocks, with no opportunity to buy declining share prices,
and (c) selling its users stocks without their authority.

Robinhood Financial LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Robinhood
Markets, Inc., with its principal place of business at 85 Willow
Road, Menlo Park, California.

Robinhood Securities, LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Robinhood
Markets, Inc., with its principal place of business at 500 Colonial
Center Parkway, Suite 100, Lake Mary, Florida.

Robinhood Markets, Inc. is an online brokerage firm, with its
principal place of business at 85 Willow Road, Menlo Park,
California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
         
         Janet R. Varnell, Esq.
         Brian W. Warwick, Esq.
         Matthew T. Peterson, Esq.
         Erika Willis, Esq.
         VARNELL & WARWICK, P.A.
         1101 E. Cumberland Ave., Suite 201H, #105
         Tampa, FL 33602
         Telephone: (352) 753-8600
         Facsimile: (352) 504-3301
         E-mail: jvarnell@varnellandwarwick.com
                bwarwick@varnellandwarwick.com
                mpeterson@varnellandwarwick.com
                ewillis@varnellandwarwick.com
                kstroly@varnellandwarwick.com

ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Feeney Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Mark Feeney, Jason Fossella, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Robinhood Financial LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company; Robinhood Securities, a
Delaware limited liability company; Robinhood Markets Inc., a
Delaware corporation; Case No. 4:21-cv-00833, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, to
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on
April 7, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-21341-CMA to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Contract.

Robinhood Financial LLC -- https://robinhood.com/ -- operates as an
institutional brokerage company. The Company provides online and
mobile application-based discount stock brokerage solutions that
allows users to invests in publicly-traded companies and
exchange-traded funds.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jason S. Rathod, Esq.
          Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq.
          MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD, LLP
          412 H. Street, N.E., Suite 302
          Washington, DC 20002
          Phone: (202) 470-3520
          Email: jrathod@classlawdc.com
                 nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com

               - and -

          Selin Demir, Esq.
          MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD, LLP
          639 N Broadway, Apt. 513
          Los Angeles, CA 90012
          Phone: (301) 412-0299
          Email: sdemir3794@gmail.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Carl Brandon Wisoff, Esq.
          Eric D. Monek Anderson, Esq.
          FARELLA BRAUN & MARTEL LLP
          235 Montgomery Street, 17th floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Phone: (415) 954-4400
          Email: bwisoff@fbm.com
                 EMonekAnderson@fbm.com

               - and -

          Kevin J. Orsini, Esq.
          Brittany L. Sukiennik, Esq.
          CRAVATH SWAINE AND MOORE LP
          825 Eighth Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: (212) 474-1596
          Email: korsini@cravath.com
                 bsukiennik@cravath.com


ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Gossett Suit Moved From C.D. Cal. to S.D. Fla.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JOSH GOSSETT and JAMES LAPLANT, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL,
LLC; ROBINHOOD SECURITIES, LLC; ROBINHOOD MARKETS, INC.; and DOES
1-100, inclusive, Case No. 2:21-cv-00837, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on April
6, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-21293-CMA to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged breach of implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing, negligence, breach of
fiduciary duty, and unlawful business practices by restricting the
ability of retail investors to purchase stocks in the market.

Robinhood Financial LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Robinhood
Markets, Inc., with its principal place of business at 85 Willow
Road, Menlo Park, California.

Robinhood Securities, LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Robinhood
Markets, Inc., with its principal place of business at 500 Colonial
Center Parkway, Suite 100, Lake Mary, Florida.

Robinhood Markets, Inc. is an online brokerage firm, with its
principal place of business at 85 Willow Road, Menlo Park,
California. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:          
         
         Maurice D. Pessah, Esq.
         Michael Morris-Nussbaum, Esq.
         Summer E. Benson, Esq.
         PESSAH LAW GROUP, PC
         661 N. Harper Ave., Suite 208
         Los Angeles, CA 90048
         Telephone: (310) 772-2261
         E-mail: maurice@pessahgroup.com
                 mmnussbaum@pessahgroup.com
                 sbenson@pessahgroup.com

                  - and –

         Stuart Chelin, Esq.
         CHELIN LAW FIRM
         1801 Century Park East, Suite 2500
         Los Angeles, CA 90076
         Telephone: (310) 556-9664
         E-mail: stuart@chelinlaw.com

ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Kayali Suit Moved From C.D. Cal. to S.D. Fla.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled HANNA KAYALI and MOHAMMED A. DOLEH, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ROBINHOOD
FINANCIAL, LLC; ROBINHOOD SECURITIES, LLC; ROBINHOOD MARKETS, INC.;
CITADEL ENTERPRISE AMERICAS, LLC; MELVIN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LP; TD
AMERITRADE, INC.; THE CHARLES SCHWAB CORPORATION; and CHARLES
SCHWAB & CO. INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-00835, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on April
6, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-21291-CMA to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged breach of contract,
breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing,
negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, civil conspiracy, action for
temporary restraining order and preliminary and permanent
injunction, and violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act
and the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practice.

Robinhood Financial LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Robinhood
Markets, Inc., with its principal place of business at 85 Willow
Road, Menlo Park, California.

Robinhood Securities, LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Robinhood
Markets, Inc., with its principal place of business at 500 Colonial
Center Parkway, Suite 100, Lake Mary, Florida.

Robinhood Markets, Inc. is an online brokerage firm, with its
principal place of business at 85 Willow Road, Menlo Park,
California.

Citadel Enterprise Americas LLC is a financial services company,
headquartered at 131 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois.

Melvin Capital Management LP is a financial services company,
headquartered at 535 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor, New York, New
York.

TD Ameritrade, Inc. is a financial services company, with its
principal place of business in Illinois.

The Charles Schwab Corporation is a financial services company,
with its principal place of business at 211 Main Street, San
Francisco, California.

Charles Schwab & Co. Inc. is a financial services company, with its
principal place of business at 211 Main Street, San Francisco,
California. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                 
         
         Heather L. Blaise, Esq.
         BLAISE & NITSCHKE, P.C.
         123 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 250
         Chicago, IL 60606
         Telephone: (312) 448-6602
         E-mail: hblaise@blaisenitschkelaw.com

                   - and –

         Lana B. Nassar, Esq.
         BLAISE & NITSCHKE, P.C.
         123 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 250
         Chicago, IL 60606
         Telephone: (312) 448-6602
         Facsimile: (312) 803-1940
         E-mail: lnassar@blaisenitschkelaw.com

ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Kayali Suit Moved From N.D. Ill. to S.D. Fla.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled HANNA KAYALI and MOHAMMED A. DOLEH, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ROBINHOOD
FINANCIAL, LLC; ROBINHOOD SECURITIES, LLC; ROBINHOOD MARKETS, INC.;
CITADEL ENTERPRISE AMERICAS, LLC; TD AMERITRADE, INC.; THE CHARLES
SCHWAB CORPORATION; CHARLES SCHWAB & CO. INC.; and MELVIN CAPITAL
MANAGEMENT, LP, Case No. 1:21-cv-00510, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on April
6, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-21297-CMA to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged breach of contract,
breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing,
negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, civil conspiracy, action for
temporary restraining order and preliminary and permanent
injunction, and violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act
and the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practice.

Robinhood Financial LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Robinhood
Markets, Inc., with its principal place of business at 85 Willow
Road, Menlo Park, California.

Robinhood Securities, LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Robinhood
Markets, Inc., with its principal place of business at 500 Colonial
Center Parkway, Suite 100, Lake Mary, Florida.

Robinhood Markets, Inc. is an online brokerage firm, with its
principal place of business at 85 Willow Road, Menlo Park,
California.

Citadel Enterprise Americas LLC is a financial services company,
headquartered at 131 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois.

TD Ameritrade, Inc. is a financial services company, with its
principal place of business in Illinois.

The Charles Schwab Corporation is a financial services company,
with its principal place of business at 211 Main Street, San
Francisco, California.

Charles Schwab & Co. Inc. is a financial services company, with its
principal place of business at 211 Main Street, San Francisco,
California.

Melvin Capital Management LP is a financial services company,
headquartered at 535 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor, New York, New
York. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                 
         
         Heather L. Blaise, Esq.
         BLAISE & NITSCHKE, P.C.
         123 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 250
         Chicago, IL 60606
         Telephone: (312) 448-6602
         E-mail: hblaise@blaisenitschkelaw.com

                   - and –

         Lana B. Nassar, Esq.
         BLAISE & NITSCHKE, P.C.
         123 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 250
         Chicago, IL 60606
         Telephone: (312) 448-6602
         Facsimile: (312) 803-1940
         E-mail: lnassar@blaisenitschkelaw.com

ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Krasowski Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled PATRYK KRASOWSKI and NICK PARKER, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL,
LLC; ROBINHOOD SECURITIES, LLC; CITADEL SECURITIES LLC; CITADEL
ENTERPRISE AMERICAS, LLC F/K/A CITADEL LLC, Case No. 4:21-cv-00758,
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida on April 6, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-21313-CMA to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged breach of fiduciary
duty, aiding and abetting, and negligence by restricting their
customers to purchase securities from their trading platforms
thereby depriving them the ability to invest in the open-market.

Robinhood Financial LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Robinhood
Markets, Inc., with its principal place of business at 85 Willow
Road, Menlo Park, California.

Robinhood Securities, LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Robinhood
Markets, Inc., with its principal place of business at 500 Colonial
Center Parkway, Suite 100, Lake Mary, Florida.

Citadel Securities LLC is a financial services company,
headquartered at 131 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois.

Citadel Enterprise Americas LLC is a financial services company,
headquartered at 131 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois.
[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                 
         
         Solomon B. Cera, Esq.
         Pamela A. Markert, Esq.
         CERA LLP
         595 Market St. Suite 1350
         San Francisco, CA 94105
         Telephone: (415) 777-2230
         Facsimile: (415) 777-5189
         E-mail: scera@cerallp.com
                 pmarkert@cerallp.com

                   - and –

         Jeffrey A. Klafter, Esq.
         Amir Alimehri, Esq.
         KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER LLP
         2 International Drive, Suite 350
         Rye Brook, NY
         Telephone: (914) 934-9200
         Facsimile: (914) 934-9220
         E-mail: jak@klafterolsen.com
                 amir.alimehri@klafterolsen.com

ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Muncy Suit Moved From D.N.J. to S.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled DAMON MUNCY, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL, LLC, ROBINHOOD
SECURITIES, LLC, ROBINHOOD MARKETS, INC., and DOES 1-100, Case No.
2:21-cv-01729, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida on April 6, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-21307-CMA to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of Section
9(a) and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by
artificially limiting their customers' purchases on the Robinhood
trading platform, and raising margin requirements to force those
who held a restricted security to sell.

Robinhood Financial LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Robinhood
Markets, Inc., with its principal place of business at 85 Willow
Road, Menlo Park, California.

Robinhood Securities, LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Robinhood
Markets, Inc., with its principal place of business at 500 Colonial
Center Parkway, Suite 100, Lake Mary, Florida.

Robinhood Markets, Inc. is an online brokerage firm, with its
principal place of business at 85 Willow Road, Menlo Park,
California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
         
         Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
         THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
         One Gateway Center, Suite 2600
         Newark, NJ 07102
         Telephone: (973) 313-1887
         Facsimile: (973) 833-0399
         E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com

ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Nordeen Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled TIMOTHY A. NORDEEN and AARON KOLYSKO, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ROBINHOOD
FINANCIAL, LLC; ROBINHOOD SECURITIES, LLC; and ROBINHOOD MARKETS,
INC., Case No. 3:21-cv-00167, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida on April 6,
2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-21294-CMA to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged breach of contract,
breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing,
negligence, and breach of fiduciary duty by restricting their
customers to purchase stocks from their trading platforms thereby
depriving them the ability to invest in the open-market.

Robinhood Financial LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Robinhood
Markets, Inc., with its principal place of business at 85 Willow
Road, Menlo Park, California.

Robinhood Securities, LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Robinhood
Markets, Inc., with its principal place of business at 500 Colonial
Center Parkway, Suite 100, Lake Mary, Florida.

Robinhood Markets, Inc. is an online brokerage firm, with its
principal place of business at 85 Willow Road, Menlo Park,
California. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:          
         
         Gary R. Carlin, Esq.
         CARLIN & BUCHSBAUM, LLP
         301 East Ocean Boulevard Suite 1550
         Long Beach, CA 90802
         Telephone: (562) 432-1656

ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Lagmanson Securities Suit Moved to S.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MARCUS LAGMANSON, ANTHONY R. REYES, and BRIAN
BELDERRAIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ROBINHOOD MARKETS, INC.; ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL, LLC;
ROBINHOOD SECURITIES, LLC; TD AMERITRADE, INC.; and E*TRADE
FINANCIAL CORP., Case No. 1:21-cv-00541, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on April
6, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-21298-CMA to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Sherman Act by
restricting their customers to purchase stocks from their trading
platforms thereby depriving them the ability to invest in the
open-market.

Robinhood Markets, Inc. is an online brokerage firm, with its
principal place of business at 85 Willow Road, Menlo Park,
California.

Robinhood Financial LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Robinhood
Markets, Inc., with its principal place of business at 85 Willow
Road, Menlo Park, California.

Robinhood Securities, LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Robinhood
Markets, Inc., with its principal place of business at 500 Colonial
Center Parkway, Suite 100, Lake Mary, Florida.

TD Ameritrade, Inc. is a financial services company, with its
principal place of business in Illinois.

E*Trade Financial Corporation is a financial services company, with
its headquarters at 671 North Glebe Road, Ballston Tower,
Arlington, Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                 
         
         R. Tamara de Silva, Esq.
         LAW OFFICES OF R TAMARA DE SILVA, LLC
         980 N Michigan Avenue, Suite 1400
         Chicago, IL 60611
         Telephone: (312) 913-9999
         E-mail: tamara@desilvalawoffices.com

                   - and –

         Jonathan Lubin, Esq.
         8800 Bronx Ave., Suite 100H
         Skokie, IL 60077
         Telephone: (773) 954-2608
         E-mail: jonathan@lubinlegal.com

ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Schaff Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled Austin Schaff, on behalf of himself and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Robinhood Markets, Inc.,
Robinhood Financial LLC, Robinhood Securities, LLC, Case No.
8:21-cv-00216, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida on April 2, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-21264-CMA to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights.

Robinhood Markets, Inc. -- https://robinhood.com/ -- is an American
financial services company headquartered in Menlo Park, California,
known for offering commission-free trades of stocks and
exchange-traded funds via a mobile app introduced in March
2015.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
          Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
          1110 North Florida Avenue, Suite 300
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Phone: (813) 337-7992
          Fax: (813) 229-8712
          Email: bhill@wfclaw.com
                 lcabassa@wfclaw.com

               - and -

          Chad Andrew Justice, Esq.
          JUSTICE FOR JUSTICE LLC
          1205 N Franklin, Suite 326
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Phone: (813) 566-0550
          Fax: (813) 566-0770
          Email: chad@getjusticeforjustice.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Joshua Clark Webb, Esq.
          HILL, WARD & HENDERSON, P.A.
          101 E. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 3700
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Phone: (813) 222-3165
          Email: jwebb@hwhlaw.com


ROBINHOOD SECURITIES: Dalton Suit Moved From N.D. Cal. to S.D. Fla.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled CHRISTIAN A. DALTON, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. ROBINHOOD SECURITIES LLC;
ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL LLC; and ROBINHOOD MARKETS, INC., Case No.
4:21-cv-00697, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida on April 6, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-21311-CMA to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged fraud and deceit,
declaratory relief, breach of fiduciary duty, and violations of the
California Consumer Legal Remedies Act and the California's Unfair
Competition Law by removing stocks from their trading platforms in
the midst of an unprecedented stock rise thereby depriving retail
investors the ability to invest in the open-market.

Robinhood Securities, LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Robinhood
Markets, Inc., with its principal place of business at 500 Colonial
Center Parkway, Suite 100, Lake Mary, Florida.

Robinhood Financial LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Robinhood
Markets, Inc., with its principal place of business at 85 Willow
Road, Menlo Park, California.

Robinhood Markets, Inc. is an online brokerage firm, with its
principal place of business at 85 Willow Road, Menlo Park,
California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
         
         Richard C. Dalton, Esq.
         RICHARD C. DALTON, LLC
         P.O. Box 358
         Carencro, LA 70520
         Telephone: (337) 371-0375
         E-mail: rick@rickdaltonlaw.com

RUSHMORE LOAN: Fernandez Suit Removed to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Phitsamay Fernandez, individually and on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated v. Rushmore Loan
Management Services LLC, Case No. 30-02020-01128156-CU-AT-CXC, was
removed from the Orange County Superior Court, to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California on April 2, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:21-cv-00621-DOC-KES to
the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Contract.

Rushmore Rushmore Loan Management Services LLC --
https://www.rushmorelm.com/ -- is a multi-faceted financial
services company located in Irvine, California – Dallas, Texas
and San Juan, Puerto Rico.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Annick Marie Persinger, Esq.
          TYCKO AND ZAVAREEI LLP
          10880 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1101
          Los Angeles, CA 94612
          Phone: (510) 254-6808
          Fax: (202) 973-0950
          Email: apersinger@tzlegal.com

               - and -

          Hassan A Zavareei, Esq.
          Kristen Marie Gelinas Simplicio, Esq.
          TYCKO AND ZAVAREEI LLP
          1828 L Street NW Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20036
          Phone: (202) 973-0900
          Fax: (202) 973-0950
          Email: hzavareei@tzlegal.com
                 ksimplicio@tzlegal.com

               - and -

          Todd A Walburg, Esq.
          BAILEY AND GLASSER LLP
          1999 Harrison Street Suite 660
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Phone: (510) 272-8000
          Fax: (510) 463-0241
          Email: twalburg@baileyglasser.com

               - and -

          V Chai Oliver Prentice, Esq.
          TYCKO AND ZAVAREEI LLP
          1970 Broadway Suite 1070
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Phone: (510) 254-6808
          Fax: (202) 973-0950
          Email: vprentice@tzlegal.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Aaron Robert Goldstein, Esq.
          David T Biderman, Esq.
          PERKINS COIE LLP
          1888 Century Park East Suite 1700
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-1721
          Phone: (310) 788-9900
          Fax: (310) 788-3399
          Email: agoldstein@perkinscoie.com
                 dbiderman@perkinscoie.com

               - and -

          Michael J Agoglia, Esq.
          Tania L Rice, Esq.
          ALSTON AND BIRD LLP
          560 Mission Street, Suite 2100
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Phone: (415) 243-1000
          Fax: (415) 243-1001
          Email: michael.agoglia@alston.com


RUST-OLEUM: Harris Sues Over RainBrella's Repellent Properties
--------------------------------------------------------------
SHAQUAVIA HARRIS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly v. RUST-OLEUM CORPORATION, Case No. 1:21-cv-01376 (N.D.
Ill., March 12, 2021) is a proposed class action on behalf of
herself and all other consumers who purchased RainBrella.

According to the complaint, had Plaintiff known that Rust-Oleum's
representation that RainBrella "Lasts 2X Longer" than its leading
competitor (i.e., Rain-X) was false, she would not have purchased
the product.

On the front of the packaging, Rust-Oleum represents that
RainBrella "Lasts Over 100 Car Washes." In a different location on
the package's front, Rust-Oleum also represents that RainBrella
"Lasts 2X Longer*." The asterisk associated with this
representation explains -- on the opposite side of the box -- that
"RainBrella and its repellent properties last, on average, at least
two times longer versus the leading competitor in a wiper blade
abrasion test," the Plaintiff contends.

RainBrella is a glass treatment product designed to repel rain,
mud, and dirt from automotive glass.

Plaintiff Harris is a citizen and resident of Wisconsin. Plaintiff
purchased RainBrella from Amazon and at two retail locations in and
around West Bend, Wisconsin: Menards (located at 575 West Paradise
Drive) and Fleet Farm (located 3815 West Washington Street). The
last time that the Plaintiff purchased RainBrella was approximately
December 2018.

Rust-Oleum is an Illinois corporation with its principal place of
business in Vernon Hills, Illinois. Rust-Oleum Corporation is owned
by RPM International, Inc. Rust-Oleum sold RainBrella as a glass
treatment for the purpose of repelling rain, mud and dirt
instantly. RainBrella was sold in a box containing two
supersaturated cloth wipes each inside a sealed pouch.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Trent B. Miracle, Esq.
          Eric Johnson, Esq.
          SIMMONS HANLY CONROY LLC
          One Court Street
          Alton, IL 62002
          Telephone: (618) 259-2222
          Facsimile: (618) 259-2251
          E-mail: tmiracle@simmonsfirm.com
                  ejohnson@simmonsfirm.com

               - and -

          Matthew L. Dameron, Esq.
          Amy R. Jackson, Esq.
          WILLIAMS DIRKS DAMERON LLC
          1100 Main Street, Suite 2600
          Kansas City, MO 64105
          Telephone: (816) 945-7135
          Facsimile: (816) 945-7118
          E-mail: matt@williamsdirks.com
                  amy@williamsdirks.com

               - and -

          Peter Goss, Esq.
          THE GOSS LAW FIRM, P.C.
          1501 Westport Road
          Kansas City, MO 64111
          Telephone: (816) 839-6452
          Facsimile: (816) 336-1310
          E-mail: pgoss@goss-lawfirm.com

SAIA MOTOR: Madrid Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MICHAEL DAVID MADRID, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. SAIA MOTOR FREIGHT LINE LLC and
DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. CIVSB2103498, was removed
from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County
of San Bernardino to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California on April 6, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 5:21-cv-00613 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide
meal periods, failure to permit rest breaks, failure to provide
accurate itemized wage statements, failure to pay all wages due
upon separation of employment, and unfair business practices.

Saia Motor Freight Line LLC is a freight shipping and logistics
services company based in Johns Creek, Georgia. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                 
         
         Daria Dub Carlson, Esq.
         BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP
         120 Broadway, Suite 300
         Santa Monica, CA 90401-2386
         Telephone: (310) 576-2100
         Facsimile: (310) 576-2200
         E-mail: daria.carlson@bclplaw.com

                 - and –

         Allison C. Eckstrom, Esq.
         BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP
         1920 Main Street, Suite 1000
         Irvine, CA 92614-7276
         Telephone: (949) 223-7000
         Facsimile: (949) 223-7100
         E-mail: allison.eckstrom@bclplaw.com

SALESFORCE.COM INC: Settlement Reached in Scheufele Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Salesforce.com, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 17, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended January 31, 2021, that the parties reached an
agreement in principle to settle the "Scheufele action."

On August 1, 2019, pursuant to an Agreement and Plan of Merger
dated June 9, 2019, the Company acquired all of the outstanding
capital stock of  Tableau Software, which provides a self-service
analytics platform that enables users to easily access, prepare,
analyze, and present findings in their data.

In July and August 2017, two substantially similar securities class
action complaints were filed against Tableau Software, Inc. and two
of its now former executive officers.

The first complaint was filed in the U.S. District for the Southern
District of New York (the "Scheufele Action").

The second complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington and was voluntarily dismissed on
October 17, 2017.

In December 2017, the lead plaintiff in the Scheufele Action filed
an amended complaint, which alleged that between February 5, 2015
and February 4, 2016, Tableau and certain of its executive officers
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, in connection with
statements regarding Tableau's business and operations by allegedly
failing to disclose, among other things, that product launches and
software upgrades by competitors were negatively impacting
Tableau's competitive position and profitability.

The amended complaint sought unspecified damages, interest,
attorneys' fees and other costs.

In February 2018, the lead plaintiff filed a second amended
complaint (the "SAC"), which contains substantially similar
allegations as the amended complaint, and added as defendants two
more of Tableau's now former executive officers and directors.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the SAC in March 2018, which
was denied in February 2019.

Defendants filed an answer to the SAC in March 2019 and
subsequently amended their answer in April 2019.

On January 15, 2020, the court granted lead plaintiff's motion for
class certification.

The parties have completed fact and expert discovery. On October 1,
2020, the Court entered an order staying the deadline for summary
judgment motions to allow the parties to complete additional
discovery. The court has not yet set a trial date.

On March 10, 2021, the parties reached an agreement in principle
to settle the litigation in its entirety.

The parties are negotiating an agreement reflecting the specific
terms of the settlement.

Salesforce.com, Inc. develops enterprise cloud computing solutions
with a focus on customer relationship management. The company
offers Sales Cloud to store data, monitor leads and progress,
forecast opportunities, and gain insights through analytics and
relationship intelligence, as well as deliver quotes, contracts,
and invoices. The company was founded in 1999 and is headquartered
in San Francisco, California.


SETTON PISTACHIO: Remand of Ali Class Suit to State Court Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LILIA ALI, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SETTON PISTACHIO OF TERRA BELLA
INC., a California corporation, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00959-NONE-BAM (E.D. Cal.), Judge Dale
A. Drozd of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California denied:

     (i) the Plaintiff's motion to remand;

    (ii) the Plaintiff's request to conduct jurisdictional
         discovery; and

   (iii) the Defendant's request for sanctions.

Plaintiff Lilia Ali initiated the action on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated in state court against Defendant
Setton Pistachio asserting various wage claims and an unfair
competition claim under California law.  The Defendant removed the
case from state court based on the Class Action Fairness Act
("CAFA").

The Plaintiff then moved to remand the case arguing that the
Defendant's removal was untimely.  The court denied the Plaintiff's
motion to remand, finding that the Defendant's removal was timely.

Less than two months after the court's denial, the Plaintiff moved
to remand again arguing for the first time that an exception to
CAFA applied.  The second motion was referred to a magistrate judge
to issue findings and recommendations.  On Feb. 4, 2021, the
magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending
that the Plaintiff's second motion to remand be denied and imposed
a 14-day deadline for the parties to file any objections thereto.
On Feb. 18, 2021, the Plaintiff filed her objections.

The Plaintiff seeks remand based on the mandatory, home-state
exception under CAFA, which requires district courts to decline
jurisdiction over a class action if more than two-thirds of the
putative class and the primary defendant are citizens of the state
where the action was originally filed.

The issue is whether the Plaintiff has demonstrated the two-thirds
threshold by a preponderance of the evidence.

The pending findings and recommendations concluded that the
Plaintiff failed to carry her burden in this regard.  The Plaintiff
raises nine purportedly separate objections to the findings and
recommendations.  All but one of the Plaintiff's objections fail to
grapple with a key evidentiary hurdle specific to the case, cherry
pick certain phrasing employed in the findings and recommendations,
or some combination of the two.  The gravamen of the Plaintiff's
objections is, in essence, that the findings and recommendations
erred in concluding that she had failed to show that more than
two-thirds of the putative class was domiciled in California by a
preponderance of the evidence -- which is precisely her final
objection.

At bottom, Judge Drozd finds that the Plaintiff's objections fail
to address the credible piece of evidence put forth by the
Defendant, a declaration prepared by its human resources
coordinator, stating that 40% of the company's entire workforce is
migratory for nine months out of the year and others are not United
States citizens who work for defendant legally on temporary visas
that will eventually expire.  With no contradictory evidence having
been offered on this point, the findings and recommendations
correctly concluded that the Plaintiff failed to establish by a
preponderance of the evidence that more than two-thirds, or
approximately 68%, of the putative class was domiciled in
California.  Given that, the Plaintiff's objections to the findings
and recommendations for the most part downplay -- or outright
ignore -- the Shepard declaration submitted by the Defendants and
also misapply the case law.

The Plaintiff's other objections are even less persuasive, Judge
Drozd holds.  He provides just two examples.  The Plaintiff argues
that the findings and recommendations incorrectly concluded that
"all" 2,119 of the putative class members were in fact "migratory"
and that defendant's "seasonal workers are migratory."  However,
the findings and recommendations did not make any conclusion one
way or the other as to any of the putative class members, let alone
"all" of them.  Instead, that section of the findings and
recommendations merely summarized the declaration prepared by
defendant's human resources coordinator.

The same is true for the Plaintiff's objection that the findings
and recommendations incorrectly found that workers do not remain in
or return to California after their three-month contract with
defendant expires.  That section of the findings and
recommendations discussed "plausible alternatives" to the
Plaintiff's claim that mailing addresses necessarily equated to
domicile in the case given the short-term employment of many
putative class members.

In short, Judge Drozd finds these objections to be without merit.
He says it is not enough for the Plaintiff to point out what she
believes is logical; rather, she bears an evidentiary burden to
establish application of the CAFA exception, a burden she has
failed to carry.

The findings and recommendations correctly weighed the facts in the
case, interpreted and applied the law, and concluded that the
Plaintiff had failed to carry her burden in demonstrating that
greater than two-thirds of the putative class were domiciled in
California.  Moreover, the findings and recommendations properly
denied the Plaintiff leave to conduct jurisdictional discovery.

The Plaintiff's request to conduct jurisdictional discovery on its
second, and likely belated, motion to remand provides no
explanation as to what "pertinent" facts defendant might possess,
given the seasonal nature of employment for many of its employees.
Because the Plaintiff's request to conduct jurisdictional discovery
is "based on little more than a hunch that it might yield
jurisdictionally relevant facts," denying her request was not an
error.  Finally, the findings and recommendations denied the
Defendant's request for imposition of sanctions against the
Plaintiff for filing a second motion to remand.  The Defendant does
not object to that recommendation.  At this time, the Judge agrees
that sanctions are not warranted.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. Section
636(b)(1)(C), Judge Drozd has conducted a de novo review of the
case.  Having carefully reviewed the entire file, he finds that the
findings and recommendations issued on Feb. 4, 2021 are supported
by the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly, Judge Drozd adopted the findings and recommendations
issued on Feb. 4, 2021.  He denied (i) the Plaintiff's motion to
remand, (ii) the Plaintiff's request to conduct jurisdictional
discovery, and (iii) the Defendant's request for sanctions.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 30, 2021 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/whkdbnz9 from Leagle.com.


SHARED IMAGING: Ranger Gets Leave to File Second Amended Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MONICA RANGER, individually and on behalf of all those
similarly situated, PLAINTIFF v. SHARED IMAGING, a Limited
Liability Company and DOES 1 THROUGH 100, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 2:20-cv-00401-KJM-KJN (E.D. Cal.), Judge Kimberley J.
Mueller of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California granted the Plaintiff leave to amend to file her Second
Amended Complaint for Damages.

On Jan. 1, 2020, Plaintiff Ranger filed a Class Action Complaint in
Sacramento County Superior Court, asserting the following six
causes of action against Defendant Shared Imaging: (1) failure to
pay compensation for forfeited meal periods; (2) failure to pay
compensation for forfeited rest periods; (3) failure to pay
overtime wages; (4) failure to provide accurate pay stubs; (5)
failure to pay timely earned wages during employment and upon
separation of employment; and (6) violation of Business and
Professions Code Sections 17200, et seq..

On Feb. 21, 2020, the Defendant filed a Notice of Removal to the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California.

On April 23, 2020, the Plaintiff filed a First Amended Class Action
Complaint, removing her claim for failure to timely pay wages, and
adding a claim for penalties pursuant to the California Private
Attorneys General Act.

The Plaintiff seeks to file a Second Amended Complaint to add a
cause of action for Failure to Indemnify/Reimburse Business
Expenses in violation of Labor Code section 2802.

The Plaintiff and the Defendant stipulated, by and through their
respective counsel, that (i) the Plaintiff should be granted leave
to amend to file the Second Amended Complaint for Damages and (ii)
the Defendant's responsive pleading will be due 30 days after the
Second Amended Complaint for Damages is filed.

Judge Mueller approved the foregoing stipulation and directed the
Clerk is directed to accept the Second Amended Complaint for filing
forthwith.  The Second Amended Complaint for Damages is deemed
filed as of the date the Order is transmitted via the CM/ECF
system.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 30, 2021 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/48bum4jv from Leagle.com.

Clayeo C. Arnold, Esq. -- carnold@justice4you.com -- John T.
Stralen, Esq. -- jstralen@justice4you.com -- CLAYEO C. ARNOLD, A
PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION, in Sacramento, California, Attorneys
for Plaintiff MONICA RANGER individually and on behalf of those
similarly situated.

Natalie B. Fujikawa, Esq. -- nfujikawa@grsm.com -- GORDON REES
SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP, in Sacramento, California, Attorneys for
Defendant SHARED IMAGING, LLC.


SLIDEBELTS INC: Faces Quezada Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
------------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE QUEZADA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SLIDEBELTS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:21-cv-02582-RA (S.D.N.Y., March 25, 2021) alleges the Defendant
of violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act by failing to
design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by visually-impaired
people.

The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person, who
cannot use a computer without the assistance of screen-reading
software.

The Plaintiff claims that during his most recent visit to the
Defendant's Website, www.slidebelts.com, in March 2021 to browse
and potentially make a purchase, he has encountered multiple access
barriers which denied him a user experience similar to that of a
sighted individual. The Website allegedly lacked of a variety of
features and accommodations, which effectively barred him from
being able to enjoy the privileges and benefits of the Defendant's
public accommodations offered on its Website.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has engaged in acts of
intentional discrimination as a result of its failure to comply
with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.1, which would
provide the Plaintiff and other visually-impaired consumers with
equal access to the Website. Moreover, the Defendant has failed to
take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy their discriminatory
conduct.

On behalf of himself and on behalf other similarly situated
visually-impaired consumers, the Plaintiff seeks a preliminary and
permanent injunction prohibiting the Defendant from violating the
ADA and requiring the Defendant to take all the steps necessary to
make its Website into full compliance with the requirements set
forth in the ADA. The Plaintiff also demands for compensatory
damages from the Defendants, including statutory and punitive
damages and fines, as well as pre- and post-judgment interest,
litigation costs and expenses together with reasonable attorneys'
and expert fees, and other relief as the Court deems just and
proper.

Slidebelts, Inc. is a belt manufacturing company that owns and
operates the Website. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          MARS KHAIMOV LAW, PLLC
          10826 64th Avenue, Second Floor
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Tel: (929) 324-0717
          E-mail: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com


SMILEDIRECTCLUB INC: Ciccio Putative Class Suit Underway
--------------------------------------------------------
SmileDirectClub, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 12, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues to
defend a putative class action suit entitled, Ciccio, et al. v.
SmileDirectClub, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-00845 (M.D. Tenn.).


In September 2019, a putative class action on behalf of a consumer
and three orthodontists was brought against the Company in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Ciccio, et al.
v. SmileDirectClub, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-00845 (M.D.
Tenn.).

The Plaintiffs assert claims for breach of warranty, false
advertising under the Lanham Act, common law fraud, and various
state consumer protection statutes relating to the Company's
advertising.

Following a proactive voluntary dismissal by the majority of
consumer plaintiffs, one consumer has since sought to rejoin the
Middle District of Tennessee litigation or, in the alternative, to
intervene, which the Court granted.

That ruling has been appealed, and the Court has stayed the
consumer claims pending the appeal. Litigation is in the pleading
stage and discovery as to the purported provider class has
commenced.

A preliminary Case Management Order has been entered setting trial
for some time in March 2022.

The Company denies any alleged wrongdoing and intends to defend
against this action vigorously.

SmileDirectClub, Inc. operates a teledentistry platform that
provides members with a customized clear aligner therapy treatment
in the United States and internationally. The company manages the
end-to-end process, which includes marketing, aligner
manufacturing, fulfillment, treatment by a doctor, and monitoring
through completion of their treatment proprietary with a network of
approximately 240 state-licensed orthodontists and general dentists
through its teledentistry platform, SmileCheck. It offers aligners,
impression kits, whitening gels, and retainers. The company was
founded in 2014 and is headquartered in Nashville, Tennessee.


SMILEDIRECTCLUB INC: Final OK of Benbow Settlement Set for May 19
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SmileDirectClub, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 12, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the final approval of the
settlement in Stacy Benbow et al. v. SmileDirectClub, Inc. et al.,
is set for May 19, 2021.

In December 2020, a class action complaint was filed in the
Illinois state court: Stacy Benbow et al. v. SmileDirectClub, Inc.
et al., 2020 CH 07269 (Cook County Circuit Court filed 12/14/20).

The complaint alleges violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act and seeks to represent a nationwide class of
similarly situated persons. The complaint seeks injunctive relief,
statutory damages, and attorneys' fees and costs.

A tentative settlement has been approved by the court and the
Company has recorded an estimated loss of $4.8 million related to
such tentative settlement, but additional court proceedings are
necessary before the settlement is finalized.

Notice to the class is scheduled to be sent on March 20, 2021 and
final approval is set for May 19, 2021.

SmileDirectClub, Inc. operates a teledentistry platform that
provides members with a customized clear aligner therapy treatment
in the United States and internationally. The company manages the
end-to-end process, which includes marketing, aligner
manufacturing, fulfillment, treatment by a doctor, and monitoring
through completion of their treatment proprietary with a network of
approximately 240 state-licensed orthodontists and general dentists
through its teledentistry platform, SmileCheck. It offers aligners,
impression kits, whitening gels, and retainers. The company was
founded in 2014 and is headquartered in Nashville, Tennessee.


SMILEDIRECTCLUB INC: IPO-Related Litigation Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------
SmileDirectClub, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 12, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues to
defend purported class action suits related to its Initial Public
Offering (IPO).

From September to December 2019, a number of purported stockholder
class action complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Tennessee and in state courts in Tennessee,
Michigan and New York against the Company, members of the Company's
board of directors, certain of its current officers, and the
underwriters of its IPO.

The following complaints have been filed to date: Mancour v.
SmileDirectClub, Inc., 19-1169-IV (TN Chancery Court filed
9/27/19), Vang v. SmileDirectClub, Inc., 19c2316 (TN Circuit Court
filed 9/30/19), Fernandez v. SmileDirectClub, Inc., 19c2371 (TN
Circuit Court filed 10/4/19), Wei Wei v. SmileDirectClub, Inc.,
19-1254-III (TN Chancery Court filed 10/18/19), Andre v.
SmileDirectClub, Inc., 19-cv-12883 (E.D. Mich. filed 10/2/19),
Ginsberg v. SmileDirectClub, Inc., 19-cv-09794 (S.D.N.Y. filed
10/23/19), Franchi v. SmileDirectClub, Inc., 19- cv-962 (M.D. Tenn.
filed 10/29/19), Nurlybayev v. SmileDirectClub, Inc., 19-177527-CB
(Oakland County, MI Circuit Court filed 10/30/19), Sasso v.
Katzman, et al., No. 657557/2019 (NY Supreme Court filed 12/18/19),
Nurlybayev v. SmileDirectClub, Inc., No. 652603/2020 (Supreme Ct.
N.Y. Cty. filed June 19, 2020).

The complaints all allege, among other things, that the
registration statement filed with the SEC on August 16, 2019, and
accompanying amendments, and the Prospectus filed with the SEC on
September 13, 2019, in connection with the Company's initial public
offering were inaccurate and misleading, contained untrue
statements of material facts, omitted to state other facts
necessary to make the statements made not misleading, and omitted
to state material facts required to be stated therein.

The complaints seek unspecified money damages, other equitable
relief, and attorneys' fees and costs.

All of the actions are in the preliminary stages. The Company
denies any alleged wrongdoing and intends to vigorously defend
against these actions.

In December 2019, the Fernandez, Vang, Mancour and Wei Wei actions
were consolidated and re-captioned In re SmileDirectClub, Inc.
Securities Litigation, 19-1169-IV (Davidson County, TN Chancery
Court).

Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on December 20,
2019, and Defendants moved to stay or dismiss the action on
February 10, 2020. On June 4, 2020, the court denied that motion.

Defendants subsequently moved for permission to seek an
interlocutory appeal of that decision. On June 22, 2020, the court
granted that motion. On August 3, 2020, Defendants filed an
application for interlocutory appeal with the court of appeals,
which was denied. On September 21, 2020, Defendants filed an
application for interlocutory appeal with the Tennessee Supreme
Court, which was denied.

On October 2, 2020, Plaintiffs moved for class certification, which
Defendants opposed on January 25, 2021.

A hearing on the class certification motion is scheduled for March
26, 2021.

The Andre and Ginsberg actions were transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, where they
were consolidated with the Franchi action. Plaintiffs filed a
consolidated amended complaint on February 21, 2020, and Defendants
moved to dismiss the action on March 23, 2020. That motion remains
pending.

In the Nurlybayev action, on January 10, 2020, the Defendants moved
to dismiss or stay the entire action in favor of the related
actions pending in Tennessee, which motion was granted and the case
was dismissed on February 26, 2020. On June 19, 2020, Plaintiff
Nurlybayev filed a substantially similar action in New York state
court. On August 21, 2020, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss
that action, which is fully briefed and remains pending.

In the Sasso action, Plaintiff agreed to stay the action pending
resolution of any motions to dismiss in any of the related actions.
The Court so-ordered the parties' stipulation to that effect on
January 22, 2020.

SmileDirectClub, Inc. operates a teledentistry platform that
provides members with a customized clear aligner therapy treatment
in the United States and internationally. The company manages the
end-to-end process, which includes marketing, aligner
manufacturing, fulfillment, treatment by a doctor, and monitoring
through completion of their treatment proprietary with a network of
approximately 240 state-licensed orthodontists and general dentists
through its teledentistry platform, SmileCheck. It offers aligners,
impression kits, whitening gels, and retainers. The company was
founded in 2014 and is headquartered in Nashville, Tennessee.


SONY INTERACTIVE: N.D. California Sends Crawford to Arbitration
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BRANDI CRAWFORD, Plaintiff, v. SONY INTERACTIVE
ENTERTAINMENT LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-01732-JD (N.D.
Cal.), Judge James Donato of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California sent the case to arbitration under
the Federal Arbitration Act.

Plaintiff Crawford alleges that her minor son spent more than
$1,000 without her permission in the Fortnite video game hosted on
the PlayStation Network operated by Defendant Sony Interactive
Entertainment LLC ("SIE").  Crawford sued on behalf of herself and
a putative class of other parents whose kids spent money in SIE's
games without permission.  Crawford's minor son is not a party, and
she has not been designated a guardian ad litem.  She alleges
declaratory relief and a variety of California state law claims.

SIE requests an order sending the case to arbitration under the
FAA.

Ms. Crawford forthrightly acknowledges that the Defendants are
correct that she is bound by the arbitration and class action
waivers for transactions in which she engaged.  Crawford accepted
SIE's System Software Licensing Agreement ("SSLA") and Terms of
Service and User Agreement ("ToSUA"), both of which contain
agreements to arbitrate disputes and waivers of proceeding on a
class action basis.  She does not challenge SIE's evidence showing
that she agreed to the SSLA and ToSUA as conditions of operating
the console and accessing the PSN.  Crawford also does not dispute
that these agreements were made in connection with the console used
by her son, and that a fair proportion of the PSN charges were
incurred in Crawford's own account.

The SSLA and ToSUA each have broad dispute resolution clauses that
impose bilateral arbitration requirements on SIE and consumers
under the FAA.  Each agreement defines "disputes" to include
challenges to "the validity, enforceability or scope" of the
arbitration clause.  Each agreement expressly incorporates the
Consumer and Commercial Rules of the American Arbitration
Association ("AAA") to govern the arbitration proceedings.  Each
agreement also contains a class action waiver.

Ms. Crawford has not raised any objections to arbitration on
grounds of contract formation, or substantive or procedural
unconscionability.  Her sole argument against arbitration is that
her minor son could not be bound by a contract under California
law.

That may be, Judge Donato holds, but it is beside the point for
present purposes.  He says that is because the complaint alleges a
dispute entirely between Crawford and SIE.  Crawford is the only
named Plaintiff, and the only injury alleged is the money she
personally lost after unsuccessfully seeking a refund from SIE.
That dispute is wholly within the scope of the arbitration clause,
as Crawford recognizes.

Consequently, a referral to arbitration is required.  Under the
FAA, the district court's role is limited to determining whether a
valid arbitration agreement exists and, if so, whether the
agreement encompasses the dispute at issue.  If the party seeking
to compel arbitration establishes both factors, the district court
must order the parties to proceed to arbitration.  Any doubts about
the scope of arbitrable issues should be decided in favor of
arbitration.  To the extent any questions remain about the
validity, enforceability, or interpretation of the arbitration
clauses, the parties' incorporation of the AAA rules has delegated
those issues to the arbitrator.  Crawford did not specifically
challenge the delegation clause, and so it will be enforced.

Judge Donato ordered the case to arbitration.  He stayed the case
and administratively closed pending further order.  The parties are
directed to file joint status reports every 90 days, and to
promptly advise the Court of a settlement or other resolution.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 30, 2021 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/2tj5dfwn from Leagle.com.


SOS LIMITED: Faces Beltran Suit Over Drop in Share Price
--------------------------------------------------------
KIMBERLY BELTRAN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SOS LIMITED; YANDAI WANG; and ERIC
H. YAN, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-07454 (D.N.J., Mar. 30, 2021)
is a federal securities class action on behalf all persons and
entities that purchased or otherwise acquired SOS American
depository shares ("ADSs") between July 22, 2020 and February 25,
2021, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover
damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities
laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act").

According to the complaint, throughout the Class Period, the
Defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business, operations, and compliance
policies. Specifically, the Defendants made false and misleading
statements and failed to disclose that: (i) SOS had misrepresented
the true nature, location, and existence of at least one of the
principal executive offices listed in its SEC filings; (ii) HY and
FXK were either undisclosed related parties and entities fabricated
by the Company; (iii) the Company had misrepresented the type and
existence of the mining rigs that it claimed to have purchased; and
(iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.

As a result of the Defendants' alleged wrongful acts and omissions,
and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages.

SOS Limited engages in insurance marketing business. The Company
provides marketing data, technology, and solutions for insurance
companies, emergency rescue services, insurance products, and
health care information portal. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gustavo F. Bruckner, Esq.
          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
          James M. LoPiano, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          Facsimile: (917) 463-1044
          E-mail: gfbruckner@pomlaw.com
                  jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                  ahood@pomlaw.com
                  jlopiano@pomlaw.com

               -and-

          Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 377-1181
          Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
          E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com


SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS: Class Certification in Gorss TCPA Suit Nixed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GORSS MOTELS INC., Plaintiff v. SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS
COMPANY, L.P. et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-000546 (JAM) (D.
Conn.), Judge Jeffrey Alker Meyer of the U.S. District Court for
the District of Connecticut denies Gorss' motion for class
certification.

The Junk Fax Prevention Act allows for a federal cause of action
against a sender of unsolicited advertising faxes.  Plaintiff Gorss
has filed the putative class action against Defendant Sprint
alleging claims based on several fax advertisements that Gorss
received from 2013 to 2015.  The case is one of many such actions
that Gorss has filed in courts nationwide.

Gorss entered into a 20-year franchise agreement in 1988 to operate
a Super 8 motel in Cromwell, Connecticut.  The Super 8 motels were
a subsidiary of Wyndham Hotel Group.  The parties amended the
franchise agreement in 2009 to extend the franchise to 2014, and
then again in September 2014 to enter a new franchise agreement
extending the term of the franchise until the end of Gorss' motel
business in 2016.

Gorss had a fax machine and it furnished the fax number to Wyndham
in the course of its regular franchise business dealings. Gorss
used Sprint Communications Co. (an affiliate of Defendant Sprint
Solutions Inc.) for its long-distance telephone services.  As a
franchisee of Wyndham, Gorss was eligible for discounts from
Sprint.

Gorss received numerous fax advertisements for Sprint's telephone
services from 2013 to 2015.  These faxes were sent as part of
Wyndham's promotional activities on behalf of its approved
suppliers like Sprint.

Gorss filed the putative class action against Sprint, alleging in
relevant part that Sprint sent junk faxes to Gorss and other class
members in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of
1991, as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005.  This
statute makes it unlawful to "use any telephone facsimile machine,
computer, or other device to send, to a telephone facsimile
machine, an unsolicited advertisement."  A "sender" within the
meaning of this provision includes "the person or entity on whose
behalf a facsimile unsolicited advertisement is sent or whose goods
or services are advertised or promoted in the unsolicited
advertisement."  he Act allows for a private right of action by a
recipient of an unsolicited fax advertisement against the sender
for its violation.

Sprint has previously moved for summary judgment, arguing that the
faxes sent to Gorss were not "unsolicited" as the Act requires.
The Act defines an "unsolicited advertisement" to mean "any
material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any
property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person
without that person's prior express invitation or permission, in
writing or otherwise."

Judge Meyer denied Sprint's summary judgment motion, concluding
that a genuine fact issue remained as to whether Gorss had given
its "prior express invitation or permission" for Sprint to send
faxes.  He noted the lack of any conclusive evidence of such
consent in the 2014 Franchise Agreement or in any other evidence of
record.

Gorss has now moved for class certification.  It seeks
certification of a class for its federal claims under the Junk Fax
Protection Act as to more than 18,000 faxes that were sent to
proposed class members to advertise Sprint products on five
different dates from November 2013 to August 2015.

Gorss seeks class certification for a damages class action pursuant
to Rule 23(b)(3).  To do so, it must first make four initial
showings under Rule 23(a) -- numerosity, commonality, typicality,
and adequacy of representation -- and then it must make at least
two more showings under Rule 23(b) -- predominance and
superiority.

Gorss asserts that the following common issues predominate and can
be decided in "one stroke" with common evidence: (1) whether the
five faxes are "advertisements" under the Junk Fax Protection Act
and the regulations; (2) whether Sprint is a "sender" of the faxes
under the regulations; and (3) whether Sprint's opt-out notices
complied with the statutory and regulatory requirements.  By
contrast, Gorss concedes that the "key predominance issue" in cases
like this one is whether the Act's requirement of lack of consent
("prior express invitation or permission") to receive the
advertising faxes can be decided on a class-wide basis.

Judge Meyer focuses on just one of the requirements: Predominance.
As to this requirement, Rule 23 states that a court must "find that
the questions of law or fact common to class members predominate
over any questions affecting only individual class members."

Judge Meyer finds that although it is Sprint that will bear the
burden of proof at trial on consent, it is Gorss that bears the
burden at the class certification stage to show predominance, and
the predominance inquiry in turn requires evaluation not only of
the affirmative elements of a claim but also any defenses such as
consent.  Thus, for class certification purposes "it is irrelevant
who has the burden of proof on consent," because "the proper focus
instead looks to whether the plaintiff has advanced any feasible
method of establishing consent or lack thereof on a class-wide
basis under the particular facts of the case."  Gorss has not
advanced a feasible method to determine consent on a class-wide
basis.

Because Gorss has not shown that the issue of consent can be
resolved on a class-wide basis, the Judge must next consider
whether those issues that are subject to class-wide resolution will
predominate over the issue of consent which is not amenable to
class-wide resolution -- that is, "whether the common issues can
profitably be tried on a class-wide basis, or whether they will be
overwhelmed by individual issues."  As he noted Gorss points to the
three issues described that may be resolved on a class-wide basis.

The Judge concludes on balance that the issue of consent will very
likely overwhelm those issues that could otherwise be tried on a
class-wide basis.  A class-wide trial would bog down in disputes
about whether particular class members had consented to one or more
of the 18,000 faxes that were transmitted for Sprint's services on
five different dates over a period of nearly two years.  The Judge
agrees with the rulings of many other judges who have considered
the same kinds of claims filed by Gorss under the Junk Fax
Protection Act and who have denied class certification on the
ground that Gorss cannot show that class-wide issues predominate
over individual issues of consent.

For the reasons he set forth in his ruling, Judge Meyer denies the
motion of Plaintiff Gorss for class certification.  He denies the
motion to strike as moot because he has not relied on the evidence
at issue in that motion.  The parties will submit a joint status
report and proposed case schedule on May 3, 2021.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 31, 2021 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/yjxjk5wu from Leagle.com.


SPROUT FOODS: Simmons Files Suit in District of Connecticut
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sprout Foods, Inc.,
et al. The case is styled as Emily Simmons, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Sprout Foods, Inc.,
North Castle Partners, Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No.
3:21-cv-00488 (D. Conn., April 7, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Sprout Foods -- http://www.sproutorganicfoods.com/-- provides
premium organic foods for babies, toddlers and their families that
encourage happy and healthy eating.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Oren Faircloth, Esq.
          IZARD KINDALL & RAABE, LLP
          29 South Main Street, Suite 305
          West Hartford, CT 06107
          Phone: (860) 493-6292
          Email: ofaircloth@ikrlaw.com


SSC GROUP: Faces D'Cruz Suit Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
DANIE D'CRUZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SSC GROUP LLC d/b/a AROMA PROGRESSIVE INDIAN
CUISINE, SAZZAD HUSSAIN, and AKMOL HUSSAIN, Defendants, Case No.
1:21-cv-01699 (E.D.N.Y., March 29, 2021) seeks equitable and legal
relief for the Defendants' alleged willful violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a chef from on or
around October 16, 2017 until on or around October 29, 2018, and
again from on or around March 24, 2019 until on or around September
8, 2019.

The Plaintiff contends that he regularly worked in excess of 40 in
a workweek, but he was compensated at a fixed weekly salary
regardless of the number of hours he worked each week. The
Plaintiff added that he was not afforded any meal or rest breaks
during his shifts and was expected to eat and/or rest between the
lunch and dinner shifts. As a result, the Defendant failed to pay
him overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times his
regular rate of pay for all hours he worked over 40 in a workweek,
as well as spread of hours pay for every day in which his shift
exceeded 10 hours, the Plaintiff adds.

Moreover, the Defendant did not provide the Plaintiff with a notice
containing his rate of pay, the designated payday, or other
information required by NYLL at the time he was hired or at any
time. The Plaintiff did not receive wage statement, listing his
regular and overtime rates of pay, the number of regular and
overtime hours worked, gross wages, deductions, and anything
otherwise required by NYLL, with each wage payment, the suit says.

The Plaintiff also alleges that the Defendant reported fraudulent
information to the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) by reporting
only a portion of his wages when the Defendants filed their taxes
each year during his employment.

SSC Group LLC d/b/a Aroma Progressive Indian Cuisine is a
restaurant that serves Indian Cuisine owned and operated by Sazzad
Hussain and Akmol Hussain. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nicola Ciliotta, Esq.
          KATZ MELINGER PLLC
          280 Madison Ave., Suite 600
          New York, NY 10016
          Tel: (212) 460-0047
          Fax: (212) 428-6811
          E-mail: nciliotta@katzmelinger.com


STADIUM CLUB: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Jackson Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOWANDA JACKSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. STADIUM CLUB, INC. dba MASCARAS GENTLEMAN'S CLUB, a
Florida Corporation; THOMAS HARVEY SHUMAN II, an individual; DOE
MANAGERS 1 through 10; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No.
3:21-cv-00274 (M.D. Fla., March 12, 2021) is a class complaint for
damages resulting from Defendants' failure to pay minimum wages,
failure to pay overtime wages, illegal kickbacks, unlawful taking
of tips, and forced tip sharing in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff worked at the Defendants' principal place of business
located at 3225 Southside Blvd., Jacksonville, Florida.

According to the complaint, Mascaras failed to pay the Plaintiff
minimum wages and overtime wages for all hours worked in violation
of 29 U.S.C. sections 206 and 207 of the FLSA. The Defendants'
allegedly conduct violates the FLSA, which requires non-exempt
employees to be compensated for their overtime work at a rate of
one and one-half times their regular rate of pay.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Raymond R. Dieppa, Esq.
          FLORIDA LEGAL, LLC
          12550 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 209
          North Miami, FL 33181-2536
          Telephone: (305) 901-2209
          Facsimile: (786) 870-4030
          E-mail: ray.dieppa@floridalegal.law

               - and -

          Leigh S. Montgomery
          ELLZEY & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
          1105 Milford Street
          Houston, TX 77066
          Telephone: (713) 554-2377
          Facsimile: (888) 995-3335
          E-mail: leigh@hughesellzey.com

STATER BROS: Armenta Suit Removed to Central District of California
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Danny Armenta, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Stater Bros. Markets, a California
Corporation; DOES 1-50; Case No. CVRI2000225, was removed from the
Riverside Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California on April 2, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:21-cv-00583 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Labor.

Stater Bros. Markets -- https://www.staterbros.com/ -- is a
privately held supermarket chain, based in San Bernardino,
California, consisting of 171 stores located throughout Southern
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
          Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
          1110 North Florida Avenue, Suite 300
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Phone: (813) 337-7992
          Fax: (813) 229-8712
          Email: bhill@wfclaw.com
                 lcabassa@wfclaw.com

               - and -

          Chad Andrew Justice, Esq.
          JUSTICE FOR JUSTICE LLC
          1205 N Franklin, Suite 326
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Phone: (813) 566-0550
          Fax: (813) 566-0770
          Email: chad@getjusticeforjustice.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Ryan Carlton Stewart, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF RYAN C. STEWART, PLLC
          4935 W Bay Way Place
          Tampa, FL 33629
          Phone: (919) 889-4419


STATER BROS: Biggers Suit Removed to Central District of California
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Katrina Biggers, an individual, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Stater Bros. Markets,
a California Corporation; DOES 1-50; Case No. CIVDS1914074, was
removed from the San Bernardino Superior Court, to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on April 2,
2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:21-cv-00586 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Labor.

Stater Bros. Markets -- https://www.staterbros.com/ -- is a
privately held supermarket chain, based in San Bernardino,
California, consisting of 171 stores located throughout Southern
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendant is represented by:

          Brendan W Brandt, Esq.
          VARNER AND BRANDT LLP
          3750 University Avenue Suite 610
          Riverside, CA 92501-3323
          Phone: (951) 274-7777
          Fax: (951) 274-7770
          Email: brendan.brandt@varnerbrandt.com


STONERIDGE WHOLESALE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bertzyk Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
JESSICA BERTZYK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. STONERIDGE WHOLESALE DIVISION LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-00398-WCG (E.D. Wis., Mar. 30, 2021) seeks to recover from
the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Plaintiff Bertzyk was employed by the Defendant as machine
operator.

Stoneridge Wholesale Division LLC produces meat products. The
Company manufactures brats, cheese, sausages, cured, smoked,
canned, and other meat products. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James A. Walcheske, Esq.
          Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
          WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
          235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240
          Brookfield, WI 53005
          Telephone: (262) 780-1953
          Facsimile: (262) 565-6469
          E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
                  sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com


SUNPATH LTD: Hague Files TCPA Suit in District of New Jersey
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SunPath LTD. The case
is styled as Lori Hague, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. SunPath LTD., Case No. 3:21-cv-08053 (D.N.J.,
April 2, 2021).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.

SunPath -- https://mysunpath.com/ -- is the administrator of
Vehicle Service Contracts nationwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
          Ari Hillel Marcus, Esq.
          MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC
          701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
          Asbury Park, NJ 07712
          Phone: (845) 367-7146
          Fax: (732) 298-6256
          Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com
                 ari@marcuszelman.com


SURGALIGN HOLDINGS: Bid to Dismiss Lowry Class Action Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Surgalign Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2021, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the motion to dismiss
the class action suit initiated by Patricia Lowry, is pending.

There is currently ongoing stockholder litigation related to the
Company's Investigation.  

A class action complaint was filed by Patricia Lowry, a purported
shareholder of the Company, against the Company, and certain
current and former officers of the Company, in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on March 23,
2020 asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and demanding a jury trial.

The court appointed a different shareholder as Lead Plaintiff and
she filed an amended complaint on August 31, 2020.  

On October 15, 2020, the Company and the other-named defendants
moved to dismiss the amended complaint and those motions are now
ripe for review.

Surgalign Holdings, Inc. is a global medical technology company
advancing the science of spine care, focused on delivering
innovative solutions that drive superior clinical and economic
outcomes.


SYNCHRONOSS TECHNOLOGIES: Bid to Nix ERS Hawaii Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2021,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the motion to
dismiss the consolidated putative class action suit headed by the
Employees' Retirement System of the State of Hawaii, is pending.

On May 1, 2017, May 2, 2017, June 8, 2017 and June 14, 2017, four
putative class actions were filed against the Company and certain
of its current and former officers and directors in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey.

After these cases were consolidated, the court appointed as lead
plaintiff Employees' Retirement System of the State of Hawaii,
which filed, on November 20, 2017, a consolidated complaint
purportedly on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock
between February 3, 2016 and June 13, 2017.

On February 2, 2018, the defendants moved to dismiss the
consolidated complaint in its entirety, with prejudice.

Before that motion was decided, on August 24, 2018, lead plaintiff
filed a consolidated amended complaint purportedly on behalf of
purchasers of the Company's common stock between October 28, 2014
and June 13, 2017.

On June 28, 2019, the Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss
the consolidated amended complaint in its entirety, without
prejudice, allowing lead plaintiff to leave to amend its complaint.
On August 14, 2019, lead plaintiff filed a second amended
complaint.

The second amended complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
it alleges, among other things, that the defendants made false and
misleading statements of material information concerning the
Company's financial results, business operations, and prospects.

The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages, fees, interest, and costs.
On October 4, 2019, the defendants moved to dismiss the second
amended complaint in its entirety.

On May 29, 2020, the court granted in part and denied in part
defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, without
prejudice. Plaintiff filed its motion for class certification on
October 30, 2020, which motion remains pending.

The Company believes that the asserted claims lack merit and
intends to defend against all of the claims vigorously.

Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, the Company cannot
predict the outcome of the action at this time and can give no
assurance that the asserted claims will not have a material adverse
effect on its financial position or results of operations.

Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. provides cloud, digital, messaging,
and Internet of Things (IoT) platforms, products, and solutions in
North America, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, Latin America, and
the Asia Pacific. Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. was founded in
2000 and is headquartered in Bridgewater, New Jersey.

SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Scott TCPA Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Elizabeth Scott, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Synchrony Financial, a Delaware
Corporation, Case No. 16-2021-CA-000916-XX, was removed from the
Circuit Court of the 4th Judicial Circuit, to the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Florida on April 2, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:21-cv-00360 to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.

Synchrony Financial -- https://www.synchrony.com/ -- is a consumer
financial services company headquartered in Stamford, Connecticut,
United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


TALLEY INC: Faces Johnson Employment Suit in Calif. State Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Talley, Inc. The case
is captioned as Michael Johnson, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public v.
Talley, Inc. and Does 1-10, Case No. 34-2021-00296361-CU-OE-GDS
(Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., March 12, 2020).

The suit arises from employment-related issues.

Talley offers antennas, cable assemblies, connectors, radio
accessories, site components, regulators, power cables, and fiber
optics.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roman Otkupman, Esq.
          OTKUPMAN LAW FIRM, ALC
          28632 Roadside Dr, Ste 203
          Agoura Hills, CA 91301-6015
          Telephone: (818) 293-5623
          Facsimile: (888) 850-1310
          E-mail: roman@OLFLA.com

TALOS ENERGY: ILX and Castex Acquisition Related Suit Underway
--------------------------------------------------------------
Talos Energy Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues to
defend a derivative and class action suit related to its
acquisition of ILX Holdings, LLC, ILX Holdings II, LLC, ILX
Holdings III LLC and Castex Energy 2014, LLC, .

On February 28, 2020 the company acquired the outstanding limited
liability interests in certain wholly-owned subsidiaries of ILX
Holdings, LLC, ILX Holdings II, LLC, ILX Holdings III LLC and
Castex Energy 2014, LLC, each a related party and an affiliate with
the entities controlled by or affiliated with Riverstone Energy
Partners V, L.P., and Castex Energy 2016, LP (together with the
Riverstone Sellers, the Sellers), for $459.3 million (comprised of
$303.1 million in net cash paid and $156.2 million in 110,000
shares of a series of the Company's preferred stock, which
subsequently converted to an aggregate 11.0 million shares of the
company's common stock).

On May 29, 2020, a lawsuit was filed in the Court of Chancery
asserting derivative and class action claims against the company
relating to the ILX and Castex Acquisition.

Specifically, the lawsuit relates to the fairness of the
consideration paid for such acquisitions in light of the fact that
certain of the sellers are the company's affiliates.

Talos said, "We disagree with the claims made in the lawsuit and we
have filed for dismissal. We cannot currently predict the manner
and timing of the resolution of this matter and are currently
unable to estimate a range of possible losses from such matter."

Talos Energy Inc., an independent oil and gas company, focuses on
offshore exploration and production in the United States Gulf of
Mexico and the shallow waters off the coast of Mexico. The company
is headquartered in Houston, Texas.


TANTUS INC: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tantus, Inc. The case
is styled as Ramon Jaquez, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Tantus, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-02931
(S.D.N.Y., April 6, 2021).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

Tantus -- https://www.tantusinc.com/ -- is a trusted, premier brand
that designs and manufactures innovative, body safe sexual health
products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
          MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC
          701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
          Asbury Park, NJ 07712
          Phone: (845) 367-7146
          Fax: (732) 298-6256
          Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com


TCC WIRELESS: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, Lanzett Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
The case, MICHAEL LANZETT, individually and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TCC WIRELESS, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-01701 (E.D.N.Y., March 29, 2021) arises
from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant from approximately May
2017 to November 2019 as an hourly-paid and non-exempt employee.

The Plaintiff asserts that despite regularly working more than 40
hours a week, she and other similarly situated hourly-paid
employees were not paid all of their lawfully earned overtime
compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their regular
rate of pay for all hours they worked over 40 in a workweek because
the Defendant encouraged the underreporting of hours worked or
reduced the number of hours they worked. Specifically, they were
not compensated for the time they spent performing work before they
clocked in and after they clocked out; for the work performed when
interrupted and while clocked out for meal breaks; and
communicating with the corporate office, their supervisors, and,
and stores regarding work-related tasks via the either text, email,
phone call or group messaging apps when they were off the clock,
added the Plaintiff.

In addition, the Defendant willfully failed to record all of the
time that the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees have
worked for the benefit of the Defendants, and to keep accurate
payroll records as required by the FLSA.

The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a collective action seeking
to recover unpaid wages, statutory penalties and liquidated
damages, an injunction enjoining the Defendant from violating the
FLSA and its regulations in the future, pre- and post-judgment
interest, attorneys' fees and litigation costs with expert fees,
and injunctive, equitable, or other relief as the Court deems just
and proper.

TCC Wireless is one of the largest authorized premium retailers for
T-Mobile wireless. It operates over 250 retail store locations in
17 states across the U.S. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Palitz, Esq.
          SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
          800 3rd Avenue, Suite 2800
          New York, NY 10022
          Tel: (800) 616-4000
          Fax: (561) 447-8831
          E-mail: mpalitz@shavitzlaw.com
          
                - and –

          Alan L. Quiles, Esq.
          Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
          Camar R. Jones, Esq.
          SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
          951 Yamato Road, Suite 285
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Tel: (561) 447-8888
          Fax: (561) 447-8831
          E-mail: aquiles@shavitzlaw.com
                  gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com
                  cjones@shavitlaw.com


TD AMERITRADE: Schaff Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Austin Schaff, on behalf of himself and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. TD Ameritrade, Inc.,
Case No. 8:21-cv-00222, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Florida, to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida on April 2, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-21265-CMA to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights.

TD Ameritrade -- https://www.tdameritrade.com/home.page -- is a
broker that offers an electronic trading platform for the trade of
financial assets including common stocks, preferred stocks, futures
contracts, exchange-traded funds, forex, options, cryptocurrency,
mutual funds, fixed income investments, margin lending, and cash
management services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
          Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
          1110 North Florida Avenue, Suite 300
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Phone: (813) 337-7992
          Fax: (813) 229-8712
          Email: bhill@wfclaw.com
                 lcabassa@wfclaw.com

               - and -

          Chad Andrew Justice, Esq.
          JUSTICE FOR JUSTICE LLC
          1205 N Franklin, Suite 326
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Phone: (813) 566-0550
          Fax: (813) 566-0770
          Email: chad@getjusticeforjustice.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Ryan Carlton Stewart, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF RYAN C. STEWART, PLLC
          4935 W Bay Way Place
          Tampa, FL 33629
          Phone: (919) 889-4419


TEACHERS INSURANCE: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Haley ERISA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America
filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled
MELISSA HALEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. TEACHERS INSURANCE AND ANNUITY ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA,
Case No. 17-cv-855, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Hon. Judge
J. Paul Oetken entered an order:

   1. granting Haley's motion for class certification under
      Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(3), with Haley as class representative
      and the firms of Berger Montague PC and Schneider Wallace
      Cottrell Konecky LLP as class counsel; and

   2. granting Haley's motion to amend the complaint and class
      certification motion.

Haley seeks to amend her complaint and class certification motion
to add two additional named plaintiffs and class representatives.
The Court granted the request, saying Haley was diligent in seeking
to add two new plaintiffs, and their addition to the case will not
unduly prejudice TIAA.

Haley brought this putative class action against TIAA, alleging
that TIAA engaged in prohibited transactions with the Washington
University Retirement Savings Plan in violation of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). After the Court
dismissed several of the claims in an earlier complaint, Haley
filed the operative First Amended Class Action Complaint. The Court
then denied TIAA's motion to dismiss the operative complaint
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and to strike
certain class allegations.

The Defendant requests, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(f), for leave to appeal the District Court's order granting
class certification.

The appellate case is captioned as Haley v. Teachers Investment and
Annuity Association of America, Case No. 21-805, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on March 30,
2021. [BN]

Defendant-Petitioner Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of
America is represented by:

          Jaime Santos, Esq.
          GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
          1900 N Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 346-4000
          E-mail: jsantos@goodwinprocter.com  

Plaintiff-Respondent Melissa Haley, individually and on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Shanon Jude Carson, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE PC
          1818 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3000
          E-mail: scarson@bm.net

               - and -

          Ryan Hecht, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
          2000 Powell Street
          Emeryville, CA 94608
          Telephone: (415) 421-7100
          E-mail: rhecht@schneiderwallace.com

               - and -

          John J. Nestico, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
          6000 Fairview Road
          Charlotte, NC 28210
          Telephone: (510) 740-2946  
          E-mail: jnestico@schneiderwallace.com

               - and -

          Ellen Noteware, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3000
          E-mail: enoteware@bm.net

TECHNICAL EDUCATION: Person Files Suit in M.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Technical Education
Services, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Elcinda Person, on
behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Technical
Education Services, Inc. doing business as: Aviation Institute of
Maintenance; Higher Ed Growth, LLC doing business as: Inquir,
Defendants; Yodel Technologies, LLC, Movant; Case No.
8:21-mc-00038-WFJ-CPT (M.D. Fla., April 6, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Motion to Compel.

Technical Education Services, Inc. --
https://www.aviationmaintenance.edu/ -- provides educational
services. The Company offers aviation maintenance and avionics
technician, aircraft dispatcher, combination welding, heating,
ventilation, and air conditioning programs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Avi Robert Kaufman, Esq.
          Rachel Elizabeth Kaufman, Esq.
          KAUFMAN PA
          400 NW 26th St.
          Miami, FL 33127
          Phone: (305) 469-5881
          Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com
                 rachel@kaufmanpa.com

The Movant is represented by:

          David J. Kaminski, Esq.
          Stephen A. Watkins, Esq.
          CARLSON & MESSER, LLP
          5901 West Century Boulevard., Suite 1200
          Los Angeles, CA 90045
          Phone: (310) 242-2200
          Fax: (310) 242-2222
          Email: kaminskid@cmtlaw.com
                 watkinss@cmtlaw.com


TESLA INC: Faces Hiatt Class Suit Over 2019 Model Vehicles
----------------------------------------------------------
JERRY M. HIATT, v. TESLA INC., a Delaware Corporation, Case No.
(March 12, 2021), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all
others similarly situated asserting statutory and common law claims
against Tesla arising out of the condition of the Plaintiff's Tesla
2019 Model vehicle which was delivered to him in Kailua-Kona.

The Plaintiff anticipates that Tesla may seek to preclude him from
asserting such claims in a court of competent jurisdiction by
asserting that the claims are subject to an arbitration
requirement.

Plaintiff Hiatt is a resident and citizen of the State of Hawaii
residing in the County of Hawaii. He disputes the arbitrability of
all or part of his claims against Tesla and brings this action to
have the Court declare whether any claimed arbitration provision
that Tesla may rely on is valid or otherwise enforceable under
Hawaii law as to any of the claims at issue.

Because the Plaintiff disputes the existence of and applicability
of any arbitration agreement to his claims against Tesla, including
its limitations on the right to proceed by class or group action,
the Plaintiff asks that the Court determine both the validity and
enforceability of any claimed agreement to arbitrate and the scope
and extent of the matters subject to arbitration. In asking for
this determination, Mr. Hiatt does not waive any other right he may
have, which rights are expressly reserved.

Tesla is an American electric vehicle and clean energy company
based in Palo Alto, California. Tesla's current products include
electric cars, battery energy storage from home to grid scale,
solar panels and solar roof tiles, as well as other related
products and services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James J. Bickerton, Esq.
          Bridget G. Morgan-Bickerton, Esq.
          Jeremy K. O'Steen
          BICKERTON LAW GROUP
          745 Fort Street, Suite 801
          Honolulu, HI 96813
          Telephone: (808) 599-3811
          Facsimile: (808) 694-3090
          E-mail: bickerton@bsds.com
                  morgan@bsds.com
                  osteen@bsds.com

THOMPSON CREEK: Bailey Files Suit in District of Maryland
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Thompson Creek Window
Company. The case is styled as Lawrence Bailey, William Estrada, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Thompson
Creek Window Company, a Maryland corporation; Rick Wuest, an
individual; Case No. 8:21-cv-00844-PX (D. Md., April 2, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability.

Thompson Creek Window Company -- https://www.thompsoncreek.com/ --
is a local window manufacturer that builds replacement windows for
the Mid-Atlantic climate in our own local factory.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Karl J. Protil, Jr., Esq.
          SHULMAN ROGERS GANDAL PORDY AND ECKER PA
          12505 Park Potomac Ave Sixth Fl
          Potomac, MD 20854
          Phone: (301) 230-5200
          Fax: (301) 230-2891
          Email: kprotil@shulmanrogers.com


TIPTREE INC: Continues to Defend Mullins Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Tiptree Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues to
defend a class action suit entitled, Mullins v. Southern Financial
Life Insurance Co.

The company is a defendant in Mullins v. Southern Financial Life
Insurance Co., a class action lawsuit alleging violations of the
Consumer Protection Act and certain insurance statutes, as well as
common law fraud.

This and other such matters can be time-consuming, divert
management's attention and resources and cause us to incur
significant expenses. THe company's insurance and indemnities may
not cover all claims that may be asserted against the company, and
any claims asserted against the company, regardless of merit or
eventual outcome, may harm its reputation.

Tiptree said, "If we are unsuccessful in our defense in these
litigation matters, or any other legal proceeding, we may be forced
to pay damages or fines, enter into consent decrees or change our
business practices, any of which could have a material adverse
effect our business, results of operations, financial condition or
cash flows."

Tiptree Inc. operates as a holding company. The Company, through
its subsidiaries, offers financial services including insurance,
asset management, senior living, real estate, and specialty
finance. The company is based in New York, New York.


TRANS UNION: Lewis FCRA Suit Removed to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Michael Reid Lewis, individually and on behalf
of those similarly situated v. Trans Union LLC, Case No.
21STCV10069, was removed from the Superior Court State of CA County
of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California on April 6, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-02974-CAS-JEM to
the proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.

Transunion -- https://www.transunion.com/ -- offers total credit
protection all in one place from credit score, credit report and
credit alert.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sophia Marie Rios, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE PC
          12544 High Bluff Drive Suite 340
          San Diego, CA 92130
          Phone: (619) 489-0300
          Fax: (215) 875-4604
          Email: srios@bm.net

The Defendant is represented by:

          Terence N Hawley, Esq.
          Kelsey Anne Hill, Esq.
          REED SMITH LLP
          355 South Grand Avenue Suite 2900
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1514
          Phone: (213) 457-8000
          Fax: (213) 457-8080
          Email: thawley@reedsmith.com
                 khill@reedsmith.com

TRANSUNION RENTAL: Beard Files FCRA Suit in W.D. Virginia
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against TransUnion Rental
Screening Solutions, Inc. The case is styled as Richard Adam Beard,
on behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals v.
TransUnion Rental Screening Solutions, Inc., Case No.
7:21-cv-00201-EKD (W.D. Va., April 7, 2021).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.

Transunion Rental Screening Solutions, Inc. --
http://www.transunion.com/-- is located in Chicago, Illinois and
is part of the Credit Reporting Services Industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew Joseph Guzzo, Esq.
          Casey Shannon Nash, Esq.
          Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Esq.
          KELLY GUZZO PLC
          3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202
          Fairfax, VA 22030
          Phone: (703) 424-7576
          Fax: (703) 591-0167
          Email: aguzzo@kellyguzzo.com
                 casey@kellyguzzo.com
                 kkelly@kellyguzzo.com


TRANSUNION RENTAL: Brown Files FCRA Suit in District of Maryland
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against TransUnion Rental
Screening Solutions, Inc. The case is styled as Christopher W.
Brown, on behalf of himself and all individuals similarly situated
v. TransUnion Rental Screening Solutions, Inc., Case No.
8:21-cv-00889-PWG (D. Md., April 7, 2021).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.

Transunion Rental Screening Solutions, Inc. --
http://www.transunion.com/-- is located in Chicago, Illinois and
is part of the Credit Reporting Services Industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Esq.
          KELLY GUZZO PLC
          3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202
          Fairfax, VA 22030
          Phone: (703) 424-7576
          Fax: (703) 591-0167
          Email: kkelly@kellyguzzo.com


TRUECAR INC: Gordon Rose Putative Class Suit Resolved
-----------------------------------------------------
TrueCar, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 5, 2021, for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2020, that the putative class action suit
initiated by Gordon Rose has been resolved.

In December 2015, the company was named as a defendant in a
putative class action lawsuit filed by Gordon Rose in the
California Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles, which we
refer to as the California Consumer Class Action.

The complaint asserted claims for unjust enrichment, violation of
the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act and violation of the
California Business and Professions Code, based in part on
allegations that we are operating in the State of California as an
unlicensed automobile dealer and autobroker.

After the trial and appellate courts rejected the plaintiff's
motion for class certification, he voluntarily dismissed his case,
meaning that the California Consumer Class Action is resolved.

TrueCar, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as an
Internet-based information, technology, and communication services
company in the United States. It operates its platform on the
TrueCar Website and mobile applications. The company was formerly
known as Zag.com Inc. TrueCar, Inc. was founded in 2005 and is
headquartered in Santa Monica, California.


TXU ENERGY: Clewett Sues Over Unsolicited Prerecorded Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------
CHERYLL CLEWETT, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TXU ENERGY RETAIL COMPANY, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 3:21-cv-00692-S (N.D. Tex., March 24, 2021) is a class
action complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and provisions
of the Texas Business & Commerce Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendant placed 3 prerecorded
telephone calls to the Plaintiff's telephone number ending in 6431,
which has been on the National Do-Not-Call Registry since May 9,
2013, in an attempt to market its electricity plans. The
Defendant's prerecorded telephone calls received by the Plaintiff
include calls on February 15, 2021, February 16, 2021 and February
19, 2021. The Plaintiff asserts that she never provided prior
express written consent to the Defendant to receive such
unsolicited telemarketing prerecorded telephone calls.

In addition, the Defendant has violated Section 302.101 of the
Texas Business & Commerce Code when its representatives engaged in
continuous and repetitive telephone solicitation without obtaining
a registration certificate from the Office of the Secretary of
State.

Because of the Defendant's unwanted and unsolicited telemarketing
calls, the Plaintiff has suffered concrete harm, such as lost time
tending to and responding to the unsolicited calls, invasion of
privacy, and nuisance. Thus, on behalf of herself and on behalf of
all other similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff seeks an
injunctive relief prohibiting the Defendant from engaging in the
wrongful and unlawful acts, as well as statutory and treble
damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and other relief as
the Court deems reasonable and just.

TXU Energy Retail Company, LLC offers electricity and related
services to residential, commercial, and industrial customers.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Chris R. Miltenberger, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF CHRIS R.
              MILTENBERGER, PLLC
          1360 N. White Chapel, Suite 200
          Southlake, TX 76092-4322
          Tel: (817) 416-5060
          Fax: (817) 416-5062
          E-mail: chris@crmlawpractice.com

                - and –

          Max S. Morgan, Esq.
          Eric H. Weitz, Esq.
          THE WEITZ FIRM, PLLC
          1528 Walnut St., 4th Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Tel: (267) 587-6240
          Fax: (215) 689-0875
          E-mail: max.morgan@theweitzfirm.com
                  eric.weitz@theweitzfirm.com


UNIFIN INC: Faces Biston Suit Over Deceptive Collection Letter
--------------------------------------------------------------
SHMUEL BISTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. UNIFIN, INC., CACH LLC, and John Does 1-25,
Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-02527 (S.D.N.Y., March 24, 2021) is a
class action complaint brought against the Defendants for their
alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff has an alleged debt that
was incurred by to Bank of America, N.A. primarily for personal
purposes, specifically a Bank of America, N.A. credit card used for
these types of transactions. Purportedly, Bank of America, N.A.
sold the alleged debt to Defendant Cach who contracted with the
Defendant Unifin to collect the alleged debt. Subsequently on or
about January 20, 2021, the Defendant sent a collection letter to
the Plaintiff in an attempt to collect the alleged debt.

The Plaintiff contends that although the letter states payment
options or settlement offers, but it is confusing and deceptive as
it fails to state whether or not the debt will be considered
settled if the consumer makes the listed payments. The letter
implies that none of the settlement offers have firm due dates as
the Defendant only requests for payment by a specific date, and
does not require that it be done by that date.

The Defendant has allegedly violated 15 U.S.C. Section 1692e by
using false and deceptive means to collect a debt by failing to
state when some of the settlement payments were due and whether or
not the settlement payments would be considered payment in full,
and by mentioning a "discounted offer" without describing it.

Because the Plaintiff has been damaged by the Defendant's
deceptive, misleading, and unfair debt collection practices act,
the Plaintiff seeks to recover from the Defendants actual and
statutory damages, litigation costs together with reasonable
attorneys' fees and expenses, pre- and post-judgment interest, and
other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

Unifin, Inc. and Cach LLC are debt collectors. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Raphael Deutsch, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Tel: (201) 282-6500 ext. 141
          Fax: (201) 282-6501
          E-mail: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com


UNIFIN INC: Faces Lloyd Suit Over Misleading Collection Letter
--------------------------------------------------------------
TANYA LLOYD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. UNIFIN, INC., LVNV FUNDING LLC, and John
Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-00410 (D. Conn., March 24,
2021) is a class action complaint brought against the Defendants
for their alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants sent the Plaintiff a
collection letter on or about January 20, 2021 in an attempt to
collect the Plaintiff's alleged debt incurred to Citibank N.A. for
personal purposes, specifically a Citibank N.A. credit card used
for money, property, insurance or services transactions. The
Defendant's collection letter lists the "Amount Due" as $1611.13
and makes settlement offers to the Plaintiff by making payments
less than the full balance. However, the letter is deceptive and
misleading by also stating that a payment may restart the statute
of limitations, the suit says.

The Defendants allegeldy have violated 15 U.S.C. Section 1692e by
creating false and misleading representation of the status of the
debt/and the effect of partial payment of the debt, and by falsely
representing the character, amount or legal status of the debt.

As a result, the Plaintiff has been damaged. Thus, on behalf of
herself and other similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff
demands judgment from the Defendants to recover statutory damages
and actual damages, litigation costs together with reasonable
attorneys' fees and expenses, pre- and post-judgment interest, and
other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

Unifin, Inc. and LVNV Funding LLC are debt collectors. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Raphael Deutsch, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Tel: (201) 282-6500 ext. 141
          Fax: (201) 282-6501
          E-mail: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com


UNITED SPECIALTY: Ski Pass Insurance Suit Tossed w/ Leave to Amend
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: UNITED SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY SKI PASS
INSURANCE LITIGATION, Case No. 4:20-md-02975-YGR (N.D. Cal.), Judge
Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California granted the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
the Consolidated Class Action Complaint with leave to amend.

On Jan. 22, 2021, the Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss.

Having carefully considered the briefing and arguments submitted on
the motion, and for the reasons stated on the record at the March
30, 2021 hearing, Judge Rogers granted the Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss with leave to amend.

As discussed at the hearing, the Plaintiffs shall file an amended
complaint no later than April 12, 2021.  The Defendant shall file
its anticipated motion to dismiss no later than May 3, 2021.  The
Plaintiffs shall file their opposition no later than May 24, 2021.
The Defendant shall file its reply no later than June 7, 2021.  It
may set a hearing on the motion for June 29, 2021.

The Order terminates Docket Number 25.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 30, 2021 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/ydr79792 from Leagle.com.


UNITED STATES: Kluge Appeals Final Decision in Suit to Federal Cir.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff JOHN C. KLUGE filed an appeal from a ruling entered in
the lawsuit entitled Kluge v. DHS, Case No. DC-4324-20-0246-I-1, in
the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant violated the Uniformed
Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA)
(codified as amended at 38 U.S.C. Sections 4301-4333) when it
failed to pay him pay differential to which he was entitled.

The Plaintiff is now filing a Petition for Review of a Final
Decision of the Merit System Protection Board. Mr. Kluge's previous
interlocutory petition, deemed premature, sought reversal of the
Administrative Judge's May 6, 2020 order permanently dismissing the
U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) as a Party/Respondent in
the matter and substituting the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) as Respondent. It also sought an interlocutory reversal of
the Administrative Judge's May 6, 2020 order denying a request for
class certification in the matter. Mr. Kluge renews those petitions
for review and seeks reversal in this filing. Mr. Kluge further
seeks review and reversal of the Board's final decision concerning
the amount of reservist differential and other monetary relief owed
and the manner of calculation of that amount.

The appellate case is captioned as JOHN C. KLUGE, Petitioner v.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Respondent, Case No. 21-1787, in
the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, filed
on March 29. 2021. [BN]

USAA CASUALTY: Black Files Suit in Northern District of Georgia
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against USAA Casualty
Insurance Company. The case is styled as Jahazel Black,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. USAA
Casualty Insurance Company, Case No. 1:21-cv-01363-AT (N.D. Ga.,
April 5, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Insurance for Insurance Contract.

USAA Casualty Insurance Company -- https://www.usaa.com/ --
operates as an insurance company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher Baker Hall, Esq.
          Gordon Van Remmen, Esq.
          HILL & LAMPROS, LLP
          400 Galleria Pkwy, Suite 1150
          Atlanta, GA 30339
          Phone: (404) 876-8100
          Fax: (404) 876-3477
          Email: chall@hallandlampros.com
                 gordon@hallandlampros.com


V BROTHERS INC: Mazarie Seeks Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Sergio Galicia Mazarie, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. V Brothers Inc. d/b/a Townhouse Diner and
Steven Vouvoudakis, Case No. 1:21-cv-02876 (S.D. N.Y., Apr. 5,
2021) seeks to recover the legally prescribed minimum wage for
Plaintiff's hours worked and for the recovery of the pay in excess
of the 10 hours worked per day pursuant to the Federal and New York
State labor laws and the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The complaint alleges that the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff
the legally prescribed minimum wage for his hours worked from
August 2019 until March 2020. The Defendants also did not pay
Plaintiff time and half for hours worked over 40.

Mr. Mazarie was employed by the defendant as a busboy from August
2019 until March 2020.

V Brothers Inc. d/b/a Townhouse Diner, a corporation organized
under the laws of New York, is a restaurant serving steaks, chops
and seafood. Steven Vouvoudakis owns and operates the business.


The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
          HELEN F. DALTON and ASSOCIATES, PC
          80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
          Kew Gardens, NY 11415
          Telephone: 718-263-9591
          Fax: 718-263-9598


VELODYNE LIDAR: Faces Reese Securities Suit Over Common Stock Drop
------------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT REESE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, v. VELODYNE LIDAR, INC., ANAND GOPALAN, and ANDREW HAMER,
Case No. 3:21-cv-01736 (N.D. Calif., March 12, 2021) is a class
action on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired Velodyne securities between November 9, 2020 and
February 19, 2021, inclusive (the Class Period) pursuing claims
against the Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On February 22, 2021, Velodyne announced that the Board had
"removed David Hall as Chairman of the Board and terminated Marta
Hall's employment as Chief Marketing Officer of the Company" after
the Audit Committee's investigation "concluded that Mr. Hall and
Ms. Hall each behaved inappropriately with regard to certain Board
and Company processes, and failed to operate with respect, honesty,
integrity, and candor in their dealings with Company officers and
directors." In addition, the Company announced that Velodyne's
Board formally censured Mr. Hall and Ms. Hall, but that they would
remain directors of Velodyne.

On this news, Velodyne's common stock fell $3.14, or approximately
15%, to close at $17.97 per share on February 22, 2021, on
unusually heavy trading volume. Additionally, Velodyne's warrants
fell $1.47, or approximately 20%, to close at $5.90 per warrant on
February 22, 2021.

The Plaintiff contends that throughout the Class Period, the
Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as
well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the
Defendants failed to disclose to investors that certain of
Velodyne's directors had failed to operate with respect, honesty,
integrity, and candor in their dealings with the Company's officers
and directors.

As a result of the Defendants' alleged wrongful acts and omissions,
and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages.

Plaintiff Reese purchased Velodyne securities during the Class
Period, and suffered damages as a result of the federal securities
law violations and alleged false and/or misleading statements
and/or material omissions.

Velodyne provides solutions to develop safe automated systems
including real-time surround view lidar sensors. The Company became
a public entity on or about September 29, 2020 when it merged with
Graf Industrial Corp., a special purpose acquisition company. The
Individual Defendants are officers of the company. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (310) 405-7190
          E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
          Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, New York 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
          E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                  ahood@pomlaw.com
                  pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
          BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ &
          GROSSMAN, LLC
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 697-6484
          Facsimile: (212) 697-7296
          E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com

VEON LTD: Bid to Nix Westway Alliance 2nd Amended Complaint Granted
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Veon Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 15, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the court granted the
company's motion to dismiss the second amended complaint initiated
by Westway Alliance Corp.

On November 4, 2015, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United
States against VEON and certain of its then current and former
officers by Charles Kux-Kardos, on behalf of himself and other
investors in the Company alleging certain violations of the U.S.
federal securities laws in connection with the Company's public
disclosures relating to its operations in Uzbekistan.

On December 4, 2015, a second complaint was filed by Westway
Alliance Corp. that asserts essentially the same claims in
connection with essentially the same disclosures.

On April 27, 2016, the court consolidated the two actions and
appointed Westway as lead plaintiff. On May 6, 2016, a motion for
reconsideration was filed on the appointment of Westway as lead
plaintiff and on September 26, 2016, the court affirmed the
selection of Westway as the lead plaintiff. An amended complaint
was filed on December 9, 2016.

On September 19, 2017, the Court in the Southern District of New
York rendered a decision granting in part VEON's motion to dismiss
the Amended Complaint.
On February 9, 2018, VEON filed its Answer and Affirmative Defenses
to the allegations that remain in the Amended Complaint after the
Court's September 19, 2017 Order.

Motions to dismiss were filed by all the individual defendants on
February 9, 2018. On April 13, 2018, plaintiff dismissed its claims
voluntarily against one of the individual defendants. On August 30,
2018, the Court granted the motions to dismiss by all of the
individual defendants remaining in the action, and the time for
appeal has now expired.

On May 17, 2019, VEON filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings,
arguing that Westway lacked standing as a result of the September
19, 2017 order because it had not purchased any securities on or
after the date of the earliest alleged misstatement. On May 21,
2019, the Rosen Law Firm submitted a letter to the Court on behalf
of Boris Lvov seeking a pre-motion conference for leave to file a
motion to intervene and substitute Lvov as lead plaintiff.

On May 24, 2019, Westway filed a letter opposing Mr. Lvov's
request, and VEON filed a letter taking no position. Westway filed
its opposition to VEON's motion on June 17, 2019, and VEON filed
its reply papers on June 28, 2019.

On April 17, 2020, the Court denied Westway's motion and ordered
VEON's motion to proceed. On March 31, 2020, VEON's motion for
judgment on the pleadings was denied without prejudice.

Westway filed its Second Amended Complaint on April 14, 2020,
adding three additional named plaintiffs and allegations that VEON
lacked adequate internal controls as of the start date of the
Alleged Class Period and had a duty to disclose that fact to
investors no later than December 4, 2010. On May 15, 2020, VEON
filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint.

On March 11, 2021, the Court granted VEON's motion to dismiss the
Second Amended Complaint, holding that VEON had no duty to disclose
information concerning its internal controls as of the start date
of the Alleged Class Period and that Westway, therefore, lacked
standing to bring any claims against VEON as Lead Plaintiff or
otherwise.

The Court ordered that the Lead Plaintiff selection process be
reopened, and that any motions for appointment as Lead Plaintiff be
filed by April 8, 2021.

The Company intends to vigorously defend the action at all phases
of the proceedings.

Veon Ltd. is a global provider of connectivity and internet
services. Present in some of the world's most dynamic markets, VEON
provides more than 240 million customers (including the Italy Joint
Venture) with voice, fixed broadband, data and digital services.


VIEW HOMES: Faces Vance Suit Over Failure to Timely Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
TODD VANCE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. VIEW HOMES INCORPORATED; ASPEN VIEW HOMES,
LLC; ARMADILLO MANAGEMENT, L.L.C.; RLDC GP, LLC; REPUBLIC LAND AND
DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LP, f/k/a ARMADILLO CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,
LTD., f/k/a ARMADILLO CONSTRCUTION COMPANY, INC., and TRINET HR II,
INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-00881 (D. Colo., March 26, 2021)
is a collective action brought against the Defendants for their
alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Portal-to-Portal Act.

The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendants as a warranty care
representative from on or about January 2020 until on or about
January 2021.

The Plaintiff claims that throughout his employment with the
Defendants, he frequently worked in excess of 40 hours in a
workweek, between approximately 60 hours or more of work. However,
the Defendants did not pay him overtime compensation at one and
one-half times his regular rate of pay for all hours he worked over
40 in a workweek. Instead, he was only paid on a salary basis
without overtime pay despite routinely working over 40 hours in a
workweek. The Plaintiff also asserts that the Defendants failed to
maintain and preserve payroll records which accurately show the
total hours he worked on a daily and weekly basis, the Plaintiff
adds.

The Plaintiff seeks all damages available for the Defendants'
failure to timely pay all overtime wages owed, including back
wages, liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs,
and post-judgment interest, and other relief to which he and the
collective action members ay e justly entitled.

The Corporate Defendants are in the business of residential real
estate development. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Melinda Arbuckle, Esq.
          SHELLIST LAZARS SLOBIN LLP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515
          Houston, TX 77046
          Tel: (713) 621-2277
          E-mail: marbuckle@eeoc.net

                - and –

          Glenn D. Levy, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF GLENN D. LEVY
          906 West Basse Road, Suite 100
          San Antonio, TX 78212
          Tel: (210) 822-5666
          E-mail: glenn@glennlevylaw.com


VIRGIN SCENT: Hand Sanitizer's Label "Deceptive," Saiki Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
KAILA SAIKI and RAYMOND SAIKI, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. VIRGIN SCENT, INC. d/b/a
ARTNATURALS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-02948 (C.D. Cal.,
April 5, 2021) is a class action against the Defendant for unjust
enrichment, fraudulent concealment, fraud, conversion, and
violations of the California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, the
California's Unfair Competition Law, and the California's False
Advertising Law.

The case arises from the Defendant's deceptive and false
advertising, labeling, and marketing of its hand sanitizer. The
Defendant represented its hand sanitizer as natural when in fact,
the product contained the dangerous chemical compound Benzene. As a
result of the Defendant's alleged misrepresentation, the Plaintiffs
and Class members have been harmed. Had they known that the hand
sanitizer was not a natural product, they would not have purchased
it, or would have paid significantly less for it.

Virgin Scent, Inc., doing business as Artnaturals, Inc., is a
consumer products company, with a principal place of business at
16325 South Avalon Boulevard, Gardena, California. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                                 
                                                      
                          
         L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
         Yeremey Krivoshey, Esq.
         BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
         1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
         Walnut Creek, CA 94596
         Telephone: (925) 300-4455
         Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
         E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
                 ykrivoshey@bursor.com

WAL-MART STORES: Bid for Protective Order in Griego Suit Granted
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BRANDAN GRIEGO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WAL-MART STORES, INC.; et
al., Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-401-BAS-AHG (S.D. Cal.),
Magistrate Judge Allison H. Goddard of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of California grants the Defendants' Motion
for Protective Order without prejudice.

On March 8, 2021, the Plaintiff filed the operative amended
complaint in the matter, alleging that the Defendants failed to pay
him all wages due upon termination of employment, in violation of
the California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff brings the suit as a putative class action on behalf
of:

   a. Any and all individuals who worked for Defendants in the
      State of California whose employment ended at any time from
      August 27, 2019, through the date of judgment, and who
      received a Statement of Final Pay and then received any
      additional wages (regular, overtime and/or vacation) on
      Defendants on-cycle payroll immediately subsequent to the
      issuance of the Statement of Final Pay to the individual;
      and

   b. Any and all individuals who worked for Defendants in the
      State of California whose employment ended at any time from
      August 27, 2019, through the date of judgment, and who
      received a Statement of Final Pay and then received any
      additional wages (regular, overtime and/or vacation) more
      than 3 days after the issuance of the Statement of Final
      Pay on Defendants on-cycle payroll immediately subsequent
      to the issuance of the Statement of Final Pay to the
      individual.

On March 1, 2021, pursuant to the Court's Chambers Rules, the
parties alerted the Court that they disagreed about Mr. Stokes'
deposition, which was noticed for March 5.  Mr. Stokes is a
high-ranking Walmart executive for Walmart's Neighborhood Markets
business.  He has been deposed in certain related cases.  The Court
held a telephonic discovery conference on March 2, 2021.  The Court
found it appropriate to issue a briefing schedule in the matter.

On March 12, 2021 the parties filed their Joint Motion for
Determination of Discovery Dispute.  The Defendants seek an order
from the Court barring or otherwise limiting the deposition of Todd
Stokes, which the Plaintiff opposes.

The Defendants repeatedly allude to Mr. Stokes's deposition not
being relevant to class certification or the Plaintiff
individually.

As a threshold matter, Judge Goddard notes that the Court did not
bifurcate discovery so the parties are permitted to conduct
discovery relevant to both class certification and the merits of
the case.  Therefore, when considering whether Mr. Stokes'
deposition is relevant, the Judge does not restrict relevance to
issues related to class certification.

Nonetheless, the Judge does not find that Mr. Stokes' deposition is
relevant.  From September 2018 to August 2020, Mr. Stokes worked in
Divisional Human Resources Walmart US.  In this role, he was not
responsible for human resources functions in California.  Since
August 2020, Mr. Stokes has held the position of Director, Regional
People for Walmart's Neighborhood Markets.  In this role, his
responsibilities include human resources oversight for Walmart
Neighborhood Markets in his region, which includes California, but
he does not oversee human resources for Walmart Supercenters in any
region.

The case includes individuals who worked in California and whose
employment ended from Aug. 27, 2019, to the present.  The Judge
agrees with the Defendants that, since Mr. Stokes has not been
responsible for California human resources functions for most of
the class period, his testimony at this stage is neither relevant
nor proportional to the needs of the case.

The Plaintiff argues that since Mr. Stokes was deposed in other
cases, including two California cases, he should be deposed in the
case.  He seeks Mr. Stokes' deposition because "his testimony was
damaging in the Garcia and Magadia cases, where he was deposed and
was a witness at trial and because his testimony is necessary to
validate the testimony cited from Garcia in the Plaintiff's motion
for Class Certification which is directly on point to the case.

The class periods in the other related cases were different,
however, so that does not automatically make his testimony
relevant, the Judge finds.  Further, she questions whether deposing
Mr. Stokes in the case is the only means to bring in his past
testimony and concludes it would be unnecessarily intrusive at this
time.

Upon review of the papers and for the reasons she set forth, Judge
Goddard finds good cause to grant the Defendants' Motion for
Protective Order without prejudice.  After the pending motion for
class certification has been decided, the parties may revisit
whether Mr. Stokes' deposition is relevant, for example, to whether
the Defendants' policies have changed over time.  However, the
Judge reminds the parties that discovery is supposed to be
self-executing, and that they are required to meaningfully meet and
confer ahead of any future discovery disputes.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 30, 2021 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/2u3vszze from Leagle.com.


WILHELMINA INT'L: Mediation in Shanklin and Pressley Suits Undeway
------------------------------------------------------------------
Wilhelmina International, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2021,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the court in the
putative class action suits initiated by Alex Shanklin and  Shawn
Pressley has directed the parties to non-binding mediation and that
process is underway.

On October 24, 2013, a putative class action lawsuit was brought
against the Company by former Wilhelmina model Alex Shanklin and
others, including Louisa Raske, Carina Vretman, Grecia Palomares
and Michelle Griffin Trotter, in New York State Supreme Court by
the same lead counsel who represented plaintiffs in a prior,
now-dismissed action brought by Louisa Raske.  

The claims in the Shanklin Litigation initially included breach of
contract and unjust enrichment allegations arising out of matters
similar to the Raske Litigation, such as the handling and reporting
of funds on behalf of models and the use of model images.  

Other parties named as defendants in the Shanklin Litigation
include other model management companies, advertising firms, and
certain advertisers.  

On January 6, 2014, the Company moved to dismiss the Amended
Complaint in the Shanklin Litigation for failure to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted and other grounds, and other
defendants also filed motions to dismiss.  On August 11, 2014, the
court denied the motion to dismiss as to Wilhelmina and other of
the model management defendants.  

Separately, on March 3, 2014, the judge assigned to the Shanklin
Litigation wrote the Office of the New York Attorney General
bringing the case to its attention, generally describing the claims
asserted therein against the model management defendants, and
stating that the case "may involve matters in the public interest."
The judge's letter also enclosed a copy of his decision in the
Raske Litigation, which dismissed that case.

Plaintiffs retained substitute counsel, who filed a Second and then
Third Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint
asserts causes of action for alleged breaches of the plaintiffs'
management contracts with the defendants, conversion, breach of the
duty of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment.  

The Third Amended Complaint also alleges that the plaintiff models
were at all relevant times employees, and not independent
contractors, of the model management defendants, and that
defendants violated the New York Labor Law in several respects,
including, among other things, by allegedly failing to pay the
models the minimum wages and overtime pay required thereunder, not
maintaining accurate payroll records, and not providing plaintiffs
with full explanations of how their wages and deductions therefrom
were computed.  

The Third Amended Complaint seeks certification of the action as a
class action, damages in an amount to be determined at trial, plus
interest, costs, attorneys' fees, and such other relief as the
court deems proper.  

On October 6, 2015, Wilhelmina filed a motion to dismiss as to most
of the plaintiffs' claims.  The Court entered a decision granting
in part and denying in part Wilhelmina's motion to dismiss on May
26, 2017.  The Court (i) dismissed three of the five New York Labor
Law causes of action, along with the conversion, breach of the duty
of good faith and fair dealing and unjust enrichment causes of
action, in their entirety, and (ii) permitted only the breach of
contract causes of action, and some plaintiffs' remaining two New
York Labor Law causes of action to continue, within a limited time
frame.  

The plaintiffs and Wilhelmina each appealed, and the decision was
affirmed on May 24, 2018. On August 16, 2017, Wilhelmina timely
filed its Answer to the Third Amended Complaint.

On June 6, 2016, another putative class action lawsuit was brought
against the Company by former Wilhelmina model Shawn Pressley and
others, including Roberta Little, in New York State Supreme Court
by the same counsel representing the plaintiffs in the Shanklin
Litigation, and asserting identical, although more recent, claims
as those in the Shanklin Litigation.  

The Amended Complaint, asserting essentially the same types of
claims as in the Shanklin action, was filed on August 16, 2017.
Wilhelmina filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint on
September 29, 2017, which was granted in part and denied in part on
May 10, 2018.  

Some New York Labor Law and contract claims remain in the case.
Pressley has withdrawn from the case, leaving Roberta Little as the
sole remaining named plaintiff in the Pressley Litigation.  On July
12, 2019, the Company filed its Answer and Counterclaim against
Little.

On May 1, 2019, the Plaintiffs in the Shanklin Litigation (except
Raske) and the Pressley Litigation filed motions for class
certification on their contract claims and the remaining New York
Labor Law Claims. On July 12, 2019, Wilhelmina filed its opposition
to the motions for class certification and filed a cross-motion for
summary judgment against Shanklin, Vretman, Palomares, Trotter and
Little, and a motion for summary judgment against Raske.

By Order Dated May 8, 2020 (the "Class Certification Order"), the
Court denied class certification in the Pressley case, denied class
certification with respect to the breach of contract and alleged
unpaid usage claims, granted class certification as to the New York
Labor Law causes of action asserted by Vretman, Palomares and
Trotter, and declined to rule on Wilhelmina's motions for summary
judgment, denying them without prejudice to be re-filed at a later
date.

On June 12, 2020, the Plaintiffs in both the Shanklin and Pressley
actions filed Notices of Appeal to the Appellate Division, First
Department, from those portions of the Class Certification Order on
which Wilhelmina prevailed. On June 22, 2020, Wilhelmina filed
Notices of Cross-Appeal from those portions of the Class
Certification order that granted class Certification and denied
summary judgment.

The Court has directed the parties to non-binding mediation and
that process is underway.

The Company believes the claims asserted in the Shanklin Litigation
and Pressley Litigation are without merit and intends to continue
to vigorously defend the actions.

Wilhelmina International, Inc. primarily engages in the fashion
model management business. It specializes in the representation and
management of models, entertainers, artists, athletes, and other
talent to various clients, including retailers, designers,
advertising agencies, print and electronic media and catalog
companies. Wilhelmina International, Inc. was founded in 1967 and
is headquartered in Dallas, Texas.


XL FLEET: Faces Kumas Securities Suit Over Share Price Drop
-----------------------------------------------------------
SOURABH KUMAR, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. XL FLEET CORP., THOMAS J. HYNES III, DIMITRI
KAZARINOFF, and JONATHAN J. LEDECKY, Case No. 1:21-cv-02171
(S.D.N.Y., March 12, 2021) is a class action on behalf of persons
and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired XL Fleet
securities between October 2, 2020 and March 2, 2021, inclusive
(the Class Period) pursuing claims against the Defendants under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

XL Fleet formed via merger of XL Hybrids, Inc. ("XL Hybrids") and
Pivotal Investment Corporation II ("Pivotal"), which closed on or
about December 22, 2020 (the "Merger"). Pivotal was a special
purpose acquisition company incorporated for the purpose of
entering into a merger, share exchange, asset acquisition, share
purchase, recapitalization, reorganization or similar business
combination with one or more businesses or entities.

Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants allegedly made
materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to
disclose to investors that: (i) XL Fleet's salespeople were
pressured to inflate their sales pipelines to boost the Company's
reported sales and backlog; (ii) at least eighteen of the
thirty-three customers that XL featured were inactive and had not
placed an order since 2019; (iii) XL's technology had been
materially overstated and offered only 5% to 10% of fleet savings;
(iv) XL lacks the supply chain and engineers to roll out new
products on the announced timelines; and (v) as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On March 3, 2021, Muddy Waters Research ("Muddy Waters") published
a report entitled "XL Fleet Corp. (NYSE: XL): More SPAC Trash,"
alleging, among other things, that salespeople "were pressured to
inflate their sales pipelines materially in order to mislead XL's
board and investors" and that "customer reorder rates are in
reality quite low" due to "poor performance and regulatory issues."
Citing interviews with former employees, the report alleged that
"at least 18 of 33 customers XL featured were inactive." Muddy
Waters also claimed that XL Fleet has "weak technology" and that
"XL's announcement of future class 7-8 upfits seems highly
promotional" because the task is "too technologically complex for
XL engineers to deliver on the promised timeline."

On this news, the Company's share price fell $2.09 per share, or
13%, to close at $13.86 per share on March 3, 2021, on unusually
heavy trading volume. The share price continued to decline by $2.69
per share, or 19.4%, over two consecutive trading sessions to close
at $11.17 per share on March 5, 2021, on unusually heavy trading
volume, the suit says.

As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages.

The Plaintiff purchased XL Fleet securities during the Class
Period, and suffered damages as a result of the federal securities
law violations and alleged false and/or misleading statements
and/or material omissions.

XL Fleet provides vehicle electrification solutions for commercial
and municipal fleets in North America. The Company offers hybrid
and plug-in hybrid electric drive systems.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
          James M. LoPiano, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
          E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                  ahood@pomlaw.com
                  jlopiano@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 377-1181
          Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
          E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
          BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ &
          GROSSMAN, LLC
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 697-6484
          Facsimile: (212) 697-7296
          E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com

YALE UNIVERSITY: McNeil Appeals Discrimination Case Dismissal Order
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Anna McNeil, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit styled Anna McNeil, Eliana Singer, and Ry
Walker, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Yale University; Yale Chapter of Alpha Delta Phi
International, Inc.; Alpha Epsilon Pi, Epsilon Upsilon; Alpha Kappa
Delta of Chi Psi; Delta Kappa Epsilon, Phi Chapter; Leo; Sigma Chi,
Theta Upsilon Chapter; Sigma Nu Fraternity Beta Alpha Chapter;
Sigma Phi Epsilon, Connecticut Delta Chapter; Zeta Psi, Eta
Chapter; Alpha Delta Phi International, Inc.; Alpha Epsilon Pi
Fraternity, Inc.; Chi Psi Fraternity; Delta Kappa Epsilon
Fraternity; Sigma Alpha Epsilon Fraternity; Sigma Chi International
Fraternity; Sigma Nu Fraternity, Inc.; Sigma Phi Epsilon
Fraternity; Zeta Psi Fraternity, Inc.; Sig Ep Housing of
Connecticut Delta, LLC; Wallace H. Campbell & Company, Inc.; 402
Crown LLC; 340 Elm, LLC; Mother Phi Foundation, Inc.; Connecticut
Omega of Sigma Alpha Epsilon House Corporation; House Corporation
of Sigma Chi at Yale I; High Street Housing Corporation; ZP Nutmeg
Associates Inc., Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-209, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Connecticut (New Haven).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
asserts claims against the Fraternities for violation of the Fair
Housing Act; against Yale and the Fraternities for violating
Connecticut's law against discrimination in places of public
accommodation; and against Yale for breach of contract, violation
of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, and violation of
Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.

According to the complaint, Yale promised Plaintiffs an educational
environment free of "discrimination against any individual on
account of that individual's sex". Yale also claimed that "sexual
misconduct" was "antithetical to the standards and ideals of our
community". Yet, as Plaintiffs have come to learn, Yale fails to
honor these principles. When Plaintiffs arrived on campus as
first-year students, they encountered a thriving all-male
fraternity scene. Yale had a drastic shortage of University run
social spaces, and the fraternities were the de facto social
environment for many students.

Plaintiffs were all groped at fraternity parties during their first
semesters at Yale. They know of other female and non-binary
students who have suffered sexual harassment and assault committed
during fraternity parties, after fraternity parties, and by
fraternity members, notes the complaint.

Plaintiffs have repeatedly petitioned Yale to intervene on their
behalf and end the discriminatory admission practices of Defendant
Fraternities. They have also sought Yale's assistance in ending the
hostile environment that exists at the Fraternities and at Yale.
They have specifically pointed out that gender-segregated Greek
life violates Yale's anti-discrimination policies. The University,
however, has refused to take meaningful steps to alter the
Fraternities' admission practices or address the hostile
environment, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs are now seeking a review of the Court's Order dated
January 30, 2020, granting Fraternity Defendants, 402 Crown, LLC,
and 340 Elm, LLC's motion to dismiss the case.

The appellate case is captioned as McNeil v. Yale University, Case
No. 21-639, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit, filed on March 19, 2021. [BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants Anna McNeil, Eliana Singer, and Ry Walker, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; and
Engender, on behalf of itself and its members, are represented by:

          Daniel H. Schneider, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER LAW FIRM, LLC
          75 New Haven Avenue, Suite 1
          Milford, CT 06460
          Telephone: (203) 874-0030
          E-mail: daniel@schneider-law-firm.com

Defendant-Appellee Yale University is represented by:

          Benjamin Field, Esq.
          HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
          555 13th Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 637-6462
          E-mail: benjamin.field@hoganlovells.com

YOUNG'S MARKET: Jimenez Labor Suit Removed to N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled SERGIO MEZA JIMENEZ, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. YOUNG'S MARKET COMPANY, LLC;
REPUBLIC NATIONAL DISTRIBUTING COMPANY, LLC; and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Case No. 21CV376557, was removed from the Superior Court
of California for the County of Santa Clara to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California on April 2, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 5:21-cv-02410 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay minimum and regular rate wages,
failure to pay overtime compensation, failure to provide meal
periods, failure to authorize and permit rest breaks, failure to
timely pay final wages at termination, failure to provide accurate
itemized wage statements, and unfair business practices.

Young's Market Company, LLC is a distributor of wines, spirits, and
other alcoholic beverages, headquartered in Tustin, California.

Republic National Distributing Company, LLC is a beverage alcohol
distributor of premium wine and spirits in the U.S., headquartered
in Atlanta, Georgia. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:          
         
         James R. Evans, Jr., Esq.
         Kaitlin H. Owen, Esq.
         ALSTON & BIRD LLP
         333 South Hope Street, 16th Floor
         Los Angeles, CA 90071-1410
         Telephone: (213) 576-1000
         Facsimile: (213) 576-1100
         E-mail: james.evans@alston.com
                 kaitlin.owen@alston.com

ZANCO PROPERTIES: Wash. App. Flips Dismissal of Lewis Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PAUL LEWIS, an individual, and all those similarly
situated, Appellant v. VERNICE ZANCO, an individual, and FRED
ZANCO, all individual, and their marital community, d/b/a ZANCO
PROPERTIES, and UNIVERSITY SOUTH AND EAST, LLC, a Washington
limited liability company, Respondents, Case No. 37471-8-III (Wash.
App.), the Court of Appeals of Washington, Division Three, reversed
the trial court's order of dismissal.

The Residential Landlord-Tenant Act of 1973 ("RLTA"), chapter 59.18
RCW, is a comprehensive statute, intended to regulate
landlord-tenant disputes.  When rights and remedies are available
to resolve a landlord-tenant dispute under the RLTA, they operate
to the exclusion of more general remedies available under the
Consumer Protection Act ("CPA"), chapter 19.86 RCW.  But not all
landlord-tenant disputes are addressed by the RLTA.  When the
RLTA's rights and remedies are not at issue, there is no basis for
barring other statutory claims, such as those under the CPA.

Mr. Lewis sued his former landlord, Zanco Properties, alleging it
had violated the CPA by reaching outside the RLTA to impose a state
fire code fine.  Mr. Lewis started renting an apartment from Zanco
in September 2014.  He paid a $200 security deposit, a
nonrefundable $150 for carpet cleaning and administrative fees, and
$495 in monthly rent.  The rental agreement noted the smoke
detector was functional.  It also warned Mr. Lewis it was his
responsibility to maintain the smoke detector, and he "could be
held liable for a fine of up to $200 per RCW 59.18.130(7) and RCW
43.44.110" if he did not fulfill this duty.  This responsibility
was listed as one of Zanco's "House Rules of Occupancy."  Failure
to abide by these rules was "grounds for termination of tenancy."

Mr. Lewis moved out of the apartment on July 29, 2016, and Zanco
sent him a final bill on August 4.  It itemized $699.90 worth of
charges, primarily for cleaning services.  The largest single
charge was a $200 fee for the smoke detector, which according to
Zanco was "not working."  Zanco subtracted one $5 overpayment and
Mr. Lewis's $200 security deposit from these charges, leaving a
balance owing of $494.90.  Zanco informed Mr. Lewis he had 14 days
to pay the charges before they would be "turned over to
collections."

Mr. Lewis sent Zanco a letter disputing the charges on August 18.
Zanco responded by sending the unpaid bill to collections.  Because
Zanco's third-party collection action threatened Mr. Lewis'
continued housing assistance program support, he capitulated to its
demand for a revised payment of $510 under protest.

Mr. Lewis sued Zanco and its owners in September 2017.  His
complaint alleged Zanco's "unauthorized imposition of
administrative agency 'fines' against tenants constitutes unfair or
deceptive conduct" based upon Zanco's imposition of the smoke
detector fine.  As relief, he sought class action certification, a
security deposit refund, declaratory relief regarding the
imposition of the smoke detector fine, an award of triple the smoke
detector fine amount, and reasonable attorney fees and costs.

Zanco moved to dismiss Mr. Lewis' claim under CR 12(b)(6), or
alternatively, CR 12(c) and CR 56.  It argued Mr. Lewis could not
bring a claim related to the RLTA under the CPA; the complaint was
time-barred by a one-year statute of limitation under RCW 4.16.115;
and Zanco had the authority to impose the smoke detector fine as a
civil penalty.

The trial court agreed Mr. Lewis raised "landlord-tenant problems"
covered by the RLTA.  It posited RCW 59.18.130(7), RCW
59.18.230(3), and RCW 59.18.280 addressed Mr. Lewis' claims.
Applying State v. Schwab, 103 Wn.2d 542, 693 P.2d 108 (1985), the
court concluded "these landlord tenant disputes" did not violate
the CPA.  Although not a necessary finding based on the Schwab
holding," the trial court also concluded the assessment of a $200
fine under RCW 43.44, et seq., is within the purview of the state
fire department.  The court further determined the statute of
limitation present in RCW 4.16.115 is not applicable because
Landlord Tenant disputes do not constitute a violation of or are
not] actionable under the CPA.

Mr. Lewis now appeals the trial court's dismissal of his
complaint.

The issue now is whether Zanco's imposition of a $200 fine for Mr.
Lewis's failure to maintain a smoke detector was a dispute falling
under the scope of the RLTA.  If so, the Supreme Court's holding in
Schwab would prohibit Mr. Lewis from challenging Zanco's imposition
of the fine under the CPA.  But if not, the order of dismissal
should be reversed.

Zanco does not seriously contest the foregoing understanding of
Schwab.  Instead, it argues its imposition of the $200 fine is
governed by the RLTA.  As a result, Zanco claims Mr. Lewis'
challenges to the fine must be pursued under the RLTA, not the CPA.

The Court of Appeals disagrees with this assessment.  It opines
that the statutory fine at issue in the case is part of the state's
fire protection code, chapter 43.44 RCW, not the RLTA.  The fire
code holds tenants responsible for maintaining smoke detection
devices.  According to the code, failure to comply with this
obligation "shall be punished by a fine of not more than two
hundred dollars." Former RCW 43.44.110(4) (2006).  At the time of
the parties' dispute, the fire code did not explicitly identify the
entity responsible for imposing and collecting a smoke detection
device fine.  The statute now clarifies the authority rests with a
city or town's fire department chief, county fire marshal, or other
designated county fire official.

As Zanco points out, the RLTA makes reference to the fire code's
requirement that tenants maintain smoke detection devices.  The
RLTA imposes on landlords the duty to give tenants written notice
of their "responsibility to maintain the smoke detection device in
proper operating condition and of penalties for failure to comply
with the provisions of RCW 43.44.110(3)." RCW 59.18.060(12)(a).
The RLTA also states that one of a tenant's statutory duties is to
maintain a smoke detector.

While the RLTA references a tenant's statutory smoke detector
duties, the Court of Appeals opines that RLTA does not reference
smoke detector fines.  A landlord's remedies for a tenant's
violation of statutory duties (including the duty to maintain a
smoke detector) are set forth in detail in the RLTA.  Those
remedies range from notice of the need to repair to initiation of
an unlawful detainer action.  Nowhere in the RLTA is a landlord
authorized to impose a fine.  As held by Schwab, the remedies set
forth in the RLTA are exclusive.  Nothing in the RLTA allowed Zanco
to reach outside the RLTA for a remedy, such as a fine.

Zanco suggests that regardless of what is generally contemplated by
the RLTA, a fine was authorized in Mr. Lewis' case based on his
lease agreement and because the RLTA covers disputes over illegal
leases.

The problem with this argument, according to the Court of Appeals,
is Mr. Lewis had no claim that his lease was unlawful.  The
parties' lease did not purport to authorize Zanco to impose a fire
code fine.  As contemplated by the RLTA, RCW 59.18.060(12)(a), the
lease merely advised Mr. Lewis of his statutory obligation to
maintain a smoke detector and the risk of a fine.

In assessing the $200 fire code fine against Mr. Lewis, Zanco
reached outside the comprehensive ambit of the RLTA.  Schwab does
not apply in this context.  Regardless of whether Mr. Lewis can
ultimately succeed on a CPA claim, his suit against Zanco was not
governed by the RLTA and should not have been dismissed based on
Schwab.

For these reasons, the Court of Appeals reversed the order of
dismissa and remanded the matter for further proceedings.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 30, 2021 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/exzckkfs from Leagle.com.

Shayne Sutherland -- ssutherland@cameronsutherland.com -- Cameron
Sutherland, PLLC, at 421 W Riverside Ave., Suite 660, in Spokane,
Washington 99201-0410; Kirk David Miller, Kirk D. Miller, P.S., at
421 W Riverside Ave., Suite 660, in Spokane, Washington 99201-0410,
Counsel for Appellant(s).

Peter Steven Schweda, Attorney at Law, at 2206 N Pines Rd., in
Spokane, Washington 99206-4721, Counsel for Respondent(s).


ZARA USA: Ninth Circuit Flips Dismissal of Magana Employment Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MELISSA MAGANA, Plaintiff-Appellant v. ZARA USA, INC.
Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 20-55027 (9th Cir.), the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reverses the district court's
dismissal of Magana's employment class action suit against Zara.

The district court held that Magana's lawsuit -- which sought
Private Attorney General Act penalties based on a suitable seating
violation under the California Labor Code-- was barred by claim
preclusion because Magana was an unnamed class member in an earlier
wage-and-hour settlement with Zara.

As an initial matter, the Ninth Circuit agrees with the district
court's conclusion that the class-wide settlement agreement in the
earlier wage-and-hour action (called the "Paz" lawsuit) does not
contractually bar Magana's current claim.  On appeal, Magana asks
the Appellate Court to take this conclusion one step further and
hold that the settlement agreement affirmatively allows her
suitable seating claim to proceed on purely contractual grounds.

The Ninth Circuit holds that Magana correctly notes that parties
are allowed to contract around the preclusive effect of a
settlement agreement.  Specifically, if "a settlement agreement
expressly excludes certain claims, the resulting dismissal does not
preclude further litigation on the excluded claim."  In the case,
though, the settlement agreement does not expressly exclude the
seating claim.  So, it rejects Magana's argument that the
settlement agreement contractually allows her seating claim to go
forward.

On the other hand, the Ninth Circuit also rejects Zara's argument
that the settlement agreement precludes Magana's seating claim on
purely contractual grounds.  It is true that both the earlier
action and the current action sought PAGA penalties on the basis of
various Labor Code violations.  In light of that, the phrase "all
claims for PAGA civil penalties" could ostensibly be read to
literally encompass all claims for PAGA penalties, including
Magana's seating claim.

The Ninth Circuit holds, however, that this broad definitional
language must be read in the context of the more specific limiting
language in the settlement agreement's release provision itself.
Specifically, the settlement agreement contains a "Release of
Claims by Participating Class Members."  That paragraph makes clear
that the settlement release applies only to "claims for relief
based on the facts alleged in the complaint."  The wage-and-hour
complaint asserts claims for unpaid overtime, unpaid minimum wages,
noncompliant wage statements, the nonprovision of meal and rest
breaks, and the untimely payment of wages in violation of the
California Labor Code, plus a derivative claim for PAGA penalties.
The complaint does not allege any facts related to seating.  The
settlement agreement's release provision thus does not encompass
the suitable seating claim.

The Appellate Court disagrees with the district court's conclusion
that res judicata bars Magana's suitable seating claim.  The only
disputed element in the case is whether the Magana lawsuit involves
the same cause of action as the earlier Paz lawsuit.  The
"determinative factor" in the primary rights analysis is the "harm
suffered."

With that framework in mind, the relevant question is whether the
claims at issue in the earlier lawsuit -- unpaid overtime, unpaid
minimum wages, noncompliant wage statements, untimely payment of
wages, and the nonprovision of meal-and-rest breaks -- implicate
the same primary right as Magana's seating claim (California
requires employers to provide seating if the job reasonably permits
it).  The Ninth Circuit holds that the answer is no.  All of the
earlier claims were meant to redress the nonpayment of wages or
were otherwise related to wages, while the suitable seating claim
is entirely unrelated to wages. So, different primary rights are at
issue.

The Appellate Court recognizes that the resolution of the
primary-rights question ultimately boils down to a question of
framing: Does the suitable seating claim narrowly implicate the
right to seating, or does it implicate a broader right to a minimum
guaranteed standard of labor?

Turning to the claims in the case, the Court says it does not need
to go so far as to definitively pinpoint the primary right at issue
in Magana's suitable seating claim.  But under Villacres v. ABM
Indus. Inc., 117 Cal.Rptr.3d 398 (Ct. App. 2010), it is at least
safe to say that Magana's suitable seating claim does not relate to
the payment of wages.  In contrast, the earlier claims for unpaid
overtime, unpaid minimum wages, untimely payment of wages, and
noncompliant wage statements do relate to the payment of wages.  To
be fair, identifying the primary right at issue in the
meal-and-rest break claims is a closer call, but ultimately, the
Court thinks those claims should also be treated as wage-related
claims for purposes of the primary-rights analysis.

For one, that appears to be how the Villacres court itself treated
the claims.  And elsewhere, the California Supreme Court has
confirmed that the remedy for a meal-and-rest break violation can
be characterized as the payment of wages.

In sum, the Ninth Circuit concludes that harm at the center of all
of the earlier claims involves the nonpayment of wages for the time
value of labor.  In contrast, the harm of a suitable seating
violation is much more abstract and cannot be redressed via the
payment of wages.  Thus, the Court holds that Magana's seating
claim does not implicate the same primary right as any of the
wage-related claims resolved in the earlier class-wide settlement,
so it reverses the dismissal on claim preclusion grounds.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 31, 2021 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/z8479p69 from Leagle.com.


ZOSANO PHARMA: Stockholders Class Suits Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------
Zosano Pharma Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2021, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the stockholders
class action suits have been consolidated.

On October 29, 2020 and November 6, 2020, two stockholders filed
alleged class action lawsuits against us and certain of our current
and former executive officers in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California.

The complaints were filed purportedly on behalf of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired our securities between February 13,
2017 and September 30, 2020.

The complaints allege that the company and certain of its current
and former executive officers made false and/or misleading
statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
company's business, operations and prospects in violation of
Sections 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

The plaintiffs seek damages, interest, costs, attorneys' fees and
other unspecified relief.

On February 4, 2021, the actions were consolidated and the Court
appointed two Co-Lead Plaintiffs and two law firms as Co-Lead
Counsel in the consolidated action.

The Co-Lead Plaintiffs' deadline to file a consolidated amended
complaint is March 29, 2021.

Zosano said, "We anticipate filing a motion to dismiss. Pursuant to
a stipulated court order, we expect to file the motion on May 13,
2021; the Co-lead Plaintiffs are expected to file their opposition
on June 14, 2021; and we expect to file a reply brief on July 6,
2021. The earliest date upon which the Court may hear the motion is
July 20, 2021. These dates are subject to change upon court order
or if the Co-Lead Plaintiffs file their consolidated amended
complaint prior to the March 29, 2021 deadline."

Zosano Pharma Corporation is a clinical stage specialty
pharmaceutical company based in Fremont, California. The Company
has developed a proprietary transdermal microneedle patch system,
which delivers proprietary formulations of existing drugs through
the skin for the treatment of a variety of indications. The company
is based in Fremont, California.

ZUMIEZ INC: Bid for Class Status in Herrera Case Due April 15
-------------------------------------------------------------
Zumiez Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 15, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended January 30, 2021, that the court overseeing the
case, Alexia Herrera, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated, v. Zumiez Inc., has tentatively scheduled plaintiff's
deadline for filing a motion for class certification to April 15,
2021.

A putative class action, Alexia Herrera, on behalf of herself and
all other similarly situated, v. Zumiez Inc., was filed against the
company in the Eastern District Court of California, Sacramento
Division under case number 2:16-cv-01802-SB in August 2016.

Alexandra Bernal filed the initial complaint and then in October
2016 added Alexia Herrera as a named plaintiff and Alexandra Bernal
left the case.  

The putative class action lawsuit against the company alleges,
among other things, various violations of California's wage and
hour laws, including alleged violations of failure to pay reporting
time.  

In May 2017 the company moved for judgment on the pleadings in that
plaintiff's cause of action for reporting-time pay should fail as a
matter of law as the plaintiff and the other putative class members
did not "report for work" with respect to certain shifts on which
the plaintiff's claims are based. In August 2017, the court denied
the motion.

However, in October 2017 the district court certified the order
denying the motion for judgment on the pleadings for immediate
interlocutory review by the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit.  

The company then filed a petition for permission to appeal the
order denying the motion for judgment on the pleadings with the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which
petition was then granted in January 2018. The company's opening
appellate brief was filed in June 2018 and the plaintiff's
answering appellate brief was filed in August 2018. The company's
reply brief to the Plaintiff's answering appellate brief was filed
in September 2018 and oral arguments were completed in February
2019.  

On May 20, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit granted the company's motion for leave to file a
supplemental brief addressing new authority. On June 10, 2019, the
plaintiff's supplemental answering brief was filed with the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  

The company then filed its supplemental reply brief to the
plaintiff's supplemental answering brief with the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on June 24, 2019.

On March 19, 2020 the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit published its opinion (i) affirming the District Court's
denial of judgment on the pleadings on plaintiff's reporting time
pay and minimum wage claims, (ii) reversing the District Court's
denial of judgment on the pleadings on plaintiff's expense
reimbursement claim and (iii) refusing to certify the reporting
time pay question to the California Supreme Court.  

On April 2, 2020, the company filed a petition for rehearing en
banc to certify the reporting time pay question to the California
Supreme Court and on April 27, 2020 plaintiff filed a response to
our petition for rehearing en banc. The company in turn filed a
reply in support of its petition for rehearing en banc on May 1,
2020.

On May 14, 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit denied the company's petition for rehearing en banc.

The case was remanded to the Eastern District of California,
Sacramento for further proceedings. The court has tentatively
scheduled plaintiff's deadline for filing a motion for class
certification on April 15, 2021, and Defendant's tentative deadline
to file an opposition to the motion on June 15, 2021.

Zumiez said, "Given the current status of this case, we are unable
to express a view regarding the ultimate outcome or, if the outcome
is adverse, to estimate an amount, or range, of reasonably possible
loss. We have defended this case vigorously and will continue to do
so."

Zumiez Inc., founded in 1978, is a mall-based specialty retailer
providing sports-related apparel, footwear, equipment, and
accessories. It also sells miscellaneous novelties and dvds aimed
at young men and women between the ages of 12 and 24 and
private-label apparel. In addition, it sells merchandise on its Web
site, zumiez.com. The company is based in Everett, Washington.


                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2021. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.

                   *** End of Transmission ***